Delete a workshop and reassign its machines to the first remaining workshop. Deletion is blocked when only one workshop remains.
Delete a workshop. Its machines move to the first remaining workshop. The last workshop cannot be deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workshop_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The destructiveHint annotation already signals this is a mutation, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond that: machines are reassigned to the first remaining workshop, and the operation fails on the last workshop. It still omits whether deletion is reversible, what confirmation or permissions are required, and what a success response contains, so it is not fully transparent.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the two consequences an agent most needs. No filler, no restatement of the title, nothing wasted.
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 single-parameter destructive mutation with a covering annotation and no output schema, the description supplies the essential side effect and the failure condition. The remaining gap — reversibility and required authorization — is partly covered by destructiveHint, but an agent would still benefit from knowing whether this is undoable.
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 0% and the single parameter (workshop_id) is never mentioned in the description, so no format, ID-source, or lookup guidance is provided. The parameter's meaning is inferable from the tool purpose, but the description adds no semantics the bare schema does not already convey.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Delete a workshop'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not reference any sibling tool by name, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5, but nothing here could be confused with workshop_create, workshop_update, or machine_assign_workshop.
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 gives a concrete precondition for when the tool will not work ('The last workshop cannot be deleted'), which is the closest thing to a when-not rule for a tool with no true alternative. It does not spell out when deletion is appropriate versus restructuring with workshop_update, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.