Delete a vehicle and its entire expiry history in one operation. Use this when a vehicle must be permanently removed; for vehicles leaving the fleet, deactivate instead.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that deletion cascades to expiry items including history, which is significant destructive context. It stops short of explicitly stating irreversibility or permission requirements, but the main behavioral risk is communicated.
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, zero filler, and the destructive core is stated first. The alternative guidance is tucked in as a second sentence without bloating the description.
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 destructive tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the main consequence (cascade with history) and the main alternative. It does not explicitly mention irreversibility or authentication context, but the delete semantics plus history note make it sufficiently complete for an agent to use it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (uuid and companyId). The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and names the exact resource ('a vehicle') plus its scope ('all its expiry items, history included'). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools like vehicles_update or expiries_delete.
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?
It explicitly tells the agent to prefer vehicles_update with active=false for a vehicle that left the fleet, which is a clear alternative-condition pairing. This gives direct when-to-use guidance and prevents accidental destructive calls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.