Permanently delete one case file entry, such as a duplicate application, appointment, correspondence, or task, and return the deleted record. Remove unwanted entries by kind and entry ID.
Permanently delete one entry from the case file (e.g. a duplicate). Returns the deleted entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| entry_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'permanently' and 'Returns the deleted entry' beyond the annotations, clarifying irreversibility and return behavior. However, it omits permission requirements, cascading effects on related data, and confirmation needs. With destructiveHint=true already set, this is useful but incomplete context.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It covers the action, resource, example, and return value efficiently.
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 destructive tool with two required parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is minimally viable. Annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists, so return details are not essential. Still, it lacks any explanation of the kind/entry_id parameters and no indication of when deletion is appropriate versus completing or updating entries.
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%, so the description carries the burden for explaining parameters. It refers to deleting 'one entry,' which loosely maps to entry_id, but never mentions the required 'kind' parameter or its enum values. The description adds little semantic meaning beyond the schema's parameter names.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete one entry from the case file.' It gives an example ('e.g. a duplicate'), making the purpose clear. It does not distinguish this tool from related update/list/add siblings or explain the four supported entry kinds.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like complete_task, meineba_merkliste_entfernen, or the update_* siblings. The parenthetical 'e.g. a duplicate' implies one scenario, but it is not a usage rule or condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.