remove_reviewDelete a review record without changing any code in the repository. Set status to 'closed' to archive a finished review instead.
Delete a review. This removes only the review record - no branch, commit or file in the repository is touched. To file a finished review away without deleting it, set its status to "closed" instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context by specifying that only the review record is affected and that no repository content is touched. It also mentions the non-destructive alternative. While it doesn't cover errors or permissions, for a simple destructive operation with annotations already present, this is strong behavioral disclosure.
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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by a precise scope clarification and a useful alternative. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easily scannable.
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 tool with a single parameter, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it doesn't do, and when to use an alternative. With annotations covering safety and no output schema required, nothing critical is missing.
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% and the description does not explicitly explain the 'id' parameter. While the parameter name and tool name imply it is the review ID, the description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema (type, constraints) already states. For a low-coverage case, the description should compensate by clarifying the meaning of the ID, but it fails to do so.
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?
The description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Delete a review.' It immediately disambiguates scope by stating it removes only the review record and nothing in the repository, and contrasts with the 'closed' status alternative. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_review_comment or update_review.
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?
Explicitly states when to use this tool (when you want to delete) and when not to (when you want to file away a review, use 'closed' status instead). This is a direct, actionable usage guideline with an alternative provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.