Remove a DiagnosticSource definition to clean up monitoring sources. Action chains referencing it lose that stage.
Delete a DiagnosticSource definition (requires write permission). Action chains referencing it lose that stage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diagnosticsource_id | Yes | DiagnosticSource ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructive, non-read-only behavior)Skipicaciones. The description adds value beyond annotations by exposing the permission requirement and a specific side effect (what happens to action chains), which is behavioral context not captured in the structured metadata. No contradiction exists.
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 carry complete information with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, with permission and consequence following economically. Every word contributes.
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 one-parameter delete tool with strong annotations (destructive, idempotent) and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, permission, and cascading impact on action chains. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 100% and the single parameter (diagnosticsource_id) is succinctly described in both schema and description ('DiagnosticSource ID to delete'). The description adds no extra semantic nuance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a resource ('DiagnosticSource definition') with a clear action and scope. It also names a concrete consequence (losing action chain stages), which fully distinguishes it from sibling get/create/update_diagnosticsource 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?
States a clear prerequisite ('requires write permission') and an effect ('Action chains referencing it lose that stage'), providing context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but deletion versus create/update is unambiguous from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.