Delete an expiry item by UUID when it should be removed; to keep its history, renew or close it instead via an update with closed=true.
Delete an expiry item. To keep the history, renew it or close it (expiries_update closed=true) instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Expiry item UUID | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.48Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the consequence (history is lost) and the preservation path. It stops short of saying whether the delete is hard or soft or how to confirm it, which keeps it off a 5.
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, no filler, with the destructive action stated first and the safer alternative immediately behind it. Every clause earns its place.
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 two-parameter delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the one thing annotations cannot: what is lost and what to do instead. Only the hard-vs-soft-delete semantics and recovery options are left unstated.
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%, so uuid and companyId are already documented and the description correctly does not repeat them. It does add cross-tool knowledge by citing `closed=true` on expiries_update, but nothing about this tool's own parameters, 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an expiry item'), which cleanly separates it from expiries_get, expiries_renew and expiries_update in the sibling list. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly names the alternatives (renew, or expiries_update with closed=true) and the condition that selects them ('to keep the history'). This is exactly the when-not-to-use-this guidance that matters for a destructive call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.