Deletes a requirement and removes it from any user story's requirementIds, keeping project coverage accurate.
Delete a requirement. It is also removed from the requirementIds of any user story that covered it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one important side effect: removal from user stories' requirementIds. However, it omits critical details for a destructive operation, such as whether deletion is permanent, permission requirements, error behavior, and return value.
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 zero waste. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by disclosing a non-obvious cascade effect.
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?
Given a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% description coverage, the description is incomplete. It should cover permanence, permissions, and what happens on failure or when the requirement is in use.
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?
The tool has one parameter ('id') with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what the id refers to or its expected format, adding no meaning beyond the bare schema. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a requirement'), making the tool's core action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_requirement or delete_user_story, but the resource name makes the distinction clear enough.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., archiving, updating status) or when not to use it. It implies deletion but provides no context about prerequisites, permissions, or irreversibility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.