Delete an action chain by ID to stop referenced action rules from triggering. Requires write permission.
Delete an action chain (requires write permission). Action rules referencing it stop triggering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain_id | Yes | Action chain ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal destructiveness and lack of read-only behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: write permission is required, and dependent action rules will stop triggering. This is meaningful extra transparency and does not contradict any annotation.
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, each earning its place: the first states the operation and permission, the second states the key side effect. There is no filler, repetition, or boilerplate.
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 delete tool with no output schema and with destructive/idempotent hints already provided, the description covers the operation, prerequisite, and main consequence. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage for chain_id as 'Action chain ID', so the description need not compensate. The description only implicitly connects chain_id to the chain being deleted, adding no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an action chain') and adds the distinctive consequence that action rules referencing it stop triggering. This clearly separates it from create, update, and get action chain siblings, as well as from delete_action_rule.
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?
Provides clear context by noting the write permission requirement and the downstream effect on action rules. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the intent to remove a chain is unambiguous and the consequence helps the agent understand what deletion entails.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.