Delete a PropertySource definition to remove its configuration while retaining existing collected data. Requires write permission.
Delete a PropertySource definition (requires write permission). Existing collected data is retained.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| propertysource_id | Yes | PropertySource 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 mark it destructive and non-read-only, so the description adds value by disclosing the write-permission requirement and the retention of collected data. It does not contradict annotations and enriches the side-effect picture.
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 with the action front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place: permission note and data-retention consequence are the only extras.
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 operation with annotations covering destructive and idempotent hints, the description delivers purpose, permission, and retention behavior—sufficient for correct invocation without an output schema.
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 schema already describes propertysource_id as 'PropertySource ID to delete'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 resource ('PropertySource definition'), and adds the key scoping detail that existing collected data is retained, which clearly distinguishes it from data-deletion operations. It is precise and unambiguous.
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?
It provides clear context for when to use the tool (delete definition but keep data) and notes a prerequisite (write permission), but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use it. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.