Permanently delete a reading journal entry by ID, leaving the book, its status, and other entries unchanged. This action cannot be undone.
Permanently delete one of your reading journal entries by id (from get_reading_journal). Only that entry is removed; the book, its status, and other entries are unaffected. Cannot be undone. Returns {deleted: true, id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Reading journal entry ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds real value beyond them: it scopes the blast radius ('Only that entry is removed; the book, its status, and other entries are unaffected'), flags irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'), and specifies the return shape. This is exactly the extra context a destructive tool needs.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the blast-radius constraint, then the return value. Every sentence earns its place with 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?
With no output schema, the description supplies the return value ({deleted: true, id}), and the irreversibility and scoping statements fully cover what an agent must know before invoking an irreversible delete.
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% with a single documented id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by identifying the provenance of the id (get_reading_journal), which meaningfully helps the agent supply a valid value.
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: 'Permanently delete one of your reading journal entries by id'. It also names get_reading_journal as the source of the id, separating it cleanly from sibling delete tools (delete_list, delete_user_book).
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?
The description tells the agent where to obtain the id ('from get_reading_journal'), which routes usage correctly. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives for the adjacent set_journal_entry, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.