delete_resource

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: permanence of the deletion, the mandatory confirm-with-user precondition, and the parameter routing per target type. It does not disclose permission requirements or whether deletion cascades to related records.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope and the exclusivity claim, followed by the precondition and the parameter routing. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no filler.

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 destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers destruction semantics, the confirmation workflow, and argument selection. The remaining gap is the undefined resource_type vocabulary, which matters because that parameter is required.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the file path (parent_id + file_id) versus the record path (resource_id), but the required resource_type parameter is never explained — no accepted values or what entities it covers — so half the semantic burden is still unmet.

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 verb and resource ('remove confirmed Snipe-IT data') with the scope modifier 'Permanently or destructively'. It also distinguishes itself from all siblings by declaring it is 'the only MCP tool that can issue HTTP DELETE', so an agent can route to it without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use gate ('only for an explicit deletion request after the calling agent has retrieved and shown the exact target and received immediate user confirmation') and branches the usage by target type (files vs records). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.