Permanently delete a Cherwell business object record by its record ID. This action is irreversible and cannot be undone.
Permanently delete a business object record by its record ID (busObRecId). This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recId | Yes | Internal record ID (busObRecId) of the record. | |
| businessObject | Yes | Business object name (e.g. "Incident") or its 32-character busObId. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'), which is important for a destructive operation, but says nothing about required permissions, whether related records cascade, or what is returned on success.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, ending with the irreversibility warning. No filler or redundancy.
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 two-parameter, fully documented delete with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the key risk (permanence). It is nearly complete, with only auth/cascade behavior and error semantics left unaddressed — meaningful for a destructive op with no annotations.
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%, so both parameters (recId and businessObject) are already documented in the schema, including the busObRecId naming and the object-name-or-id convention. The description restates the record-ID concept without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a business object record') plus the identifying key (busObRecId), so the agent immediately knows what the tool does. The verb 'delete' cleanly separates it from the sibling set, which is otherwise all get/list/create/update/search tools.
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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or alternatives such as update_business_object for reversible modifications. At best the destructive verb implies intent; it is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.