Delete a LogSource definition while retaining all previously collected data. Requires write permission.
Delete a LogSource definition (requires write permission). Existing collected data is retained.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| logsource_id | Yes | LogSource ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds 'requires write permission' (auth requirement) and 'Existing collected data is retained' (scope of destruction). This adds concrete behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, followed by key constraints. Zero wasted words, and all necessary information is included.
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 operation with annotations covering safety profile, the description provides the essential context: what is deleted, permission needed, and the crucial side effect (data retention). No output schema is required for a typical delete, so the description is complete.
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 logsource_id is clearly described as 'LogSource ID to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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?
Description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('LogSource definition'), and the clarification that existing data is retained distinguishes it from other logsource operations like create/update/get. It is clear what the tool does.
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 implies usage: delete a LogSource definition. It does not explicitly contrast with update_logsource or get_logsource, nor does it state when to choose delete over update (e.g., disable vs remove). No exclusions are given, but the context is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.