Deletes an installed UI Module and all of its immutable revisions using a reverse-domain module_id.
Deletes an installed UI Module and all of its immutable revisions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module_id | Yes | Reverse-domain Module id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that all immutable revisions are deleted as a cascade, but it omits required permissions, irreversibility/confirmation behavior, and any runtime side effects.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The destructive scope is stated immediately.
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?
Complexity is low (one param, complete schema, no output schema), but the tool is destructive and has no annotations. The description covers the core action and cascade effect but leaves safety and usage context thin for an irreversible 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 single module_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (Deletes) and resource (installed UI Module), plus the cascading scope (all immutable revisions). This clearly separates it from sibling tools that delete rewrite scripts or rules, though it does not name a sibling for comparison.
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?
No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies deletion but does not help an agent choose between this and rollback_module, toggle_module, or set_module_enabled.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.