Delete a venue permanently from the event space management system. Use this action to remove an unwanted venue; requires an API token and cannot be undone.
会場を削除します。APIトークンが必要です。この操作は取り消せません。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 削除する会場のID（UUID形式） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description takes on the disclosure burden and states two key behaviors: an API token is required and the operation cannot be undone. This appropriately flags the destructive nature, though it does not mention cascading effects on related data.
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 two short sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded, and the subsequent sentence provides the essential token and irreversibility warnings. Every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the core needs: target resource, required authentication, and permanence. It could be more complete by mentioning side effects or returned response status, but these are minor for this simple tool.
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%; the id parameter is already documented in the schema as the UUID of the venue to delete. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 opens with '会場を削除します' ('Deletes a venue'), a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete_announcement, delete_token, and delete_release_note by naming the target resource.
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 intended use is implied by the verb: call this when a venue must be removed. However, it provides no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives such as update_place or bulk_update_status for non-destructive changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.