Queue an authorized deletion of specific pages or sources, requiring a reason, to remove outdated or incorrect knowledge from the Stigmergy markdown repository.
Queue an authorized explicit page or source deletion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| why | Yes | ||
| paths | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the operation is queued and authorized, but it does not state whether the deletion is permanent, reversible, requires approval, or how the result of the queued operation can be observed. For a destructive tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
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 sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise and easy to parse quickly, though it sacrifices useful semantic detail for brevity.
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?
Even though an output schema exists, this is a destructive, queued mutation with no annotations and two required parameters. The description leaves critical contextual unknowns: what 'authorized' means, what path formats are valid, why the 'why' parameter is required, and what happens after queueing. This is not complete enough for safe and correct invocation.
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?
The schema has no property descriptions and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints that 'paths' refer to pages or sources, but it never explains the 'why' parameter, its purpose, format, or required content. The description adds only minimal meaning beyond the raw schema field 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 uses a specific verb, 'Queue', and names the resource, 'page or source deletion', which tells an agent what the tool does. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like read_page, search_brain, and brain_submit. However, the qualifiers 'authorized' and 'explicit' are ambiguous and slightly obscure the exact nature of the deletion.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would lead an agent to choose brain_delete instead of read_page or brain_submit. The only usage signal is the word 'deletion', which is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.