Permanently delete a vehicle and all related expiry items, including history, when records must be removed; set active=false instead for vehicles that left the fleet.
Delete a vehicle and all its expiry items (history included). Prefer vehicles_update with active=false for a vehicle that left the fleet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Vehicle 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 destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds critical scope beyond that: deletion cascades to expiry items, including their history, which is exactly the irreversible side effect an agent needs before calling it.
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 compact sentences: the destructive action and cascade come first, followed immediately by the safer alternative. There is no filler and every clause carries decision-relevant information.
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 simple two-parameter delete tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers the action, the cascade side effect, and the safer alternative. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.
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% and both parameters (uuid, companyId) are fully documented in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level details such as which identifier is required or how companyId overrides the environment variable.
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 a vehicle') and explicitly includes the cascade ('all its expiry items, history included'), which an agent could not infer from the name alone. The sibling tools vehicles_get/create/update are implicitly distinguished by the delete scope.
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?
Names an alternative path explicitly ('Prefer vehicles_update with active=false for a vehicle that left the fleet') and gives the condition for choosing it. It doesn't spell out when permanent deletion is actually appropriate, but the main routing decision is covered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.