tebra_delete_documentDelete a document permanently from Tebra using its document ID. Use this tool when a document must be removed and cannot be recovered.
Delete a document from Tebra by document ID. This is irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentId | Yes | Tebra document ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the explicit consequence that deletion is irreversible, which is valuable cautionary context beyond the structured hint. It doesn't cover side effects or permissions, but the irreversibility warning is meaningful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, zero filler, and the key warning ('This is irreversible') is front-loaded. The description is as compact as it can be while remaining informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter deletion tool with strong annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description together with the schema is largely complete. It omits output/error behavior, but that is a minor gap for such a simple operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes documentId as 'Tebra document ID to delete.' The description merely restates 'by document ID' and adds no format, validation, or sourcing details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action (delete), a specific resource (document), and the key by which the document is targeted (document ID). It is also clearly distinct from siblings like tebra_delete_appointment and tebra_create_document.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: call this when a specific Tebra document must be removed. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, leaving tool selection mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.