Delete an escalation chain by ID to remove outdated alert routing rules from LogicMonitor, requiring write permissions.
Delete an escalation chain (requires write permission)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain_id | Yes | Escalation 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 destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the write-permission requirement. It does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, cascading, or what happens to dependent entities, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden on the description.
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 a single, action-first sentence with no filler. 'Delete an escalation chain' is front-loaded and immediately actionable, and the permission note is brief.
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 simple single-parameter schema and annotations that cover destructiveness and idempotency, the description is nearly complete for invoking the tool. The only gap is the lack of detail about post-deletion effects on associated objects, which is minor for a straightforward delete operation.
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 input schema fully describes the only parameter, chain_id, as 'Escalation chain ID' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 states the specific verb 'Delete' and the resource 'escalation chain', making the operation immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling operations like create_escalation_chain, update_escalation_chain, get_escalation_chain, and export_escalation_chain.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb: use this tool when an escalation chain should be removed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, such as checking whether the chain is referenced by alert rules, or naming alternatives like update_escalation_chain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.