delete_furnitureRemove a furniture item from your LMNP accounting records by its ID. It also deletes associated supporting documents. This action is irreversible.
Supprime un élément de mobilier par son identifiant. Les documents justificatifs associés sont également supprimés. Cette action est irréversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| furniture_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explicitly stating the action is irreversible and that associated supporting documents are also deleted. This provides valuable behavioral context about cascade effects and permanence.
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?
The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by two critical caveats. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 simple single-parameter delete tool, the description covers the core action, irreversibility, and cascading side effect. It lacks an output specification (though no output schema exists) and does not mention error cases, but these are not critical for such a straightforward 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only refers to 'son identifiant' (its identifier), which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's furniture_id field. It does not explain the nature of the identifier, how to obtain it, or any constraints beyond what the schema already shows.
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 clearly states the action (deletes) and the resource (furniture item by identifier), and distinguishes it from sibling delete tools by specifying the furniture context. It also mentions cascade deletion of associated documents, adding precision.
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 implies when to use the tool (when deleting a furniture item by ID) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. The warning about associated documents being deleted hints at consequences but does not compare with delete_document or other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.