Delete a remediation source definition. Action chains referencing it will lose that stage. Requires write permission.
Delete a RemediationSource definition (requires write permission). Action chains referencing it lose that stage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| remediationsource_id | Yes | RemediationSource 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 signal destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the write-permission requirement and the cascade effect that action chains referencing the definition lose that stage — precisely the 'what gets destroyed' context the rubric credits.
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 concise clauses that each earn their place: purpose plus permission first, then the collateral-effect warning. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.
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 flat, single-parameter delete with rich annotations (destructive, idempotent, openWorld, non-readOnly) and full schema coverage, the description covers the remaining essentials: what is removed and what breaks as a result. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to invoke it and what to expect 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 description coverage is 100%; the schema already describes remediationsource_id as 'RemediationSource ID to delete'. The description's use of 'definition' mildly clarifies the object kind but adds no real parameter-level meaning, 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?
States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('RemediationSource definition'), which inherently separates it from siblings like get_remediationsource, update_remediationsource, and execute_remediation. The parenthetical permission note and the downstream effect on action chains further pin down exactly what object this acts on.
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 purpose — an agent deletes when it wants the definition gone — but no alternative is named (e.g., update_remediationsource to change it, or get_remediationsources to find candidates). The 'requires write permission' prerequisite gives some decision context, yet there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.