Delete an applicable operation by ID to remove it from the system. Fails if any permissions are attached, protecting in-use operations; requires Write on Security.
Delete an Applicable Operation by ID. Fails if it has permissions attached. Requires 'Write' on 'Security'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Integer ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behaviors: the operation fails if permissions are attached, and it requires 'Write' on 'Security'. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent meaningful expectations about preconditions and failure modes.
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?
Three short sentences, no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the two most important behavioral constraints. Every sentence 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 simple one-parameter delete operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details: the ID, the permission requirement, and a key failure condition. It does not describe return behavior or side effects, but those are less critical for this straightforward destructive operation.
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% for the single 'id' parameter, which is documented as 'Integer ID'. The description reinforces that the ID is the target for deletion, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. 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?
Description clearly states 'Delete an Applicable Operation by ID', naming the exact action and resource. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling applicable_operations_add and applicable_operations_get_by_type_id/get_by_type_name tools.
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?
Usage is implied: use this tool when deleting an Applicable Operation by ID. The description gives constraints (fails if permissions attached, requires Write on Security) but does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative or when not to use this tool. However, as the only delete operation for this resource, the intended use is reasonably inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.