snipeit_gen_companiesid_3Deletes a company by its ID in Snipe-IT, optionally requiring a confirmation string when write operations are enabled.
DELETE /companies/{id}: Delete's a company. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation companiesid-3.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | company id | |
| 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 agent knows this is a destructive write. The description adds nothing beyond restating the operation, and critically omits behavioral details such as whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated assets, 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?
The description is brief and front-loads the operation. The generator provenance sentence adds little value but does not interfere with comprehension.
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 the destructive nature and lack of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate because annotations convey the safety profile and the schema documents parameters. However, it leaves important gaps about side effects and cascade behavior that an agent would need before invoking a destructive delete.
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 100%, and the schema itself describes the 'id' and 'confirm' parameters well. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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's a company') and includes the path, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish this company-delete operation from the many other delete operations among its siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or warnings. The delete semantics are implied by the name, but the description provides no context about when deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.