Delete a specified knowledge entry from InvestBrain's knowledge base by ID and return its deletion status.
从知识库中删除指定知识条目。
Args:
id: 知识条目 ID（如 uk_1722000000）
Returns:
{id, status: "deleted"}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only says it deletes and what it returns. It never states whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether confirmation or special permissions are needed, or what happens to the entry afterward — critical for a destructive mutation.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first line. The Args/Returns blocks are slightly formulaic and partly restate the schema, but they stay brief and the return shape is useful.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the single parameter, and the return payload but omits the behavioral context an agent needs — reversibility, required authorization, and failure modes.
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 0% (the schema only declares a string 'Id'), so the description must compensate. It does: it names the parameter as the knowledge entry ID and supplies a concrete format example (uk_1722000000), which the schema lacks. This is meaningful added value beyond the raw schema.
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+resource: delete a given knowledge entry from the knowledge base. It is clearly distinct from user_knowledge_add/update/list/search by name, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus user_knowledge_update or the other knowledge siblings, and no context on prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.