snipeit_delete_hardwareSoft-deletes a hardware asset by ID, allowing later restoration instead of permanent removal.
DELETE /hardware/{id}: soft-deletes the asset; restore it with snipeit_gen_hardwareidrestore (POST /hardware/{id}/restore).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | Required when SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES=true. Exact string "YES" to apply this write. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing that the delete is soft and reversible via a specific restore endpoint — information not present in annotations. It stops short of mentioning the confirm-write gate or permission requirements.
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 sentence that front-loads the endpoint and effect, then the recovery path. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (soft delete) comes first.
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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential effect and reversibility. It omits the SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES confirmation requirement and what the response contains, but those gaps are modest given the schema documents confirm.
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 50%: the confirm parameter is fully documented in the schema, but id has no description. The description at least shows id as a path parameter, but adds no format, validity, or lookup guidance (e.g. that id is the internal asset ID, not the asset tag). Baseline 3 given partial schema coverage.
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 /hardware/{id}) and immediately qualifies the semantics as a soft delete, which is exactly the distinction an agent needs. It also names the restore counterpart, so it is separable from the many sibling delete/update endpoints.
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?
Gives clear context for use and explicitly names the recovery alternative (snipeit_gen_hardwareidrestore with its path). It does not address when to prefer this over the sibling snipeit_gen_hardware_delete or snipeit_gen_hardware_partial_update, so the routing guidance is incomplete rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.