Delete a Paperless mail rule by ID with confirmation to stop future mail ingestion without affecting existing documents.
Delete one Paperless mail rule. This changes future mail ingestion behavior but does not delete documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to confirm deleting the rule |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait (affects future mail ingestion, does not delete documents), but omits reversibility, whether the confirm flag is required for safety, and permission requirements.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the key scoping caveat. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 small destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the blast radius but leaves the id parameter, reversibility, and confirmation requirement unexplained across all surfaces. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 only 50% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The 'id' parameter has no description anywhere, and the 'confirm' semantics ('must be true') live only in the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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+resource ('Delete one Paperless mail rule') and immediately scopes it against the confusing sibling domain by clarifying it does not delete documents. It is distinguishable from delete_document_note/delete_tag and from create_mail_rule/update_mail_rule, though it never names an alternative directly.
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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for removing a mail rule, and the ingestion-behavior note hints at the consequence. There is no explicit when-to-use vs update_mail_rule (e.g. disabling instead of deleting) and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.