Delete a persistent instruction by its integer ID to remove unwanted or outdated instructions from your DEX tenant.
Delete a Persistent Instruction by integer ID.
| 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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the deletion action and does not mention irreversibility, what happens when the ID is not found, or any dependent/cascading effects. This is thin for a destructive operation.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, object, and parameter in one line, and every word 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 single-ID deletion with a fully described parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core facts an agent needs to invoke the tool. It could add more color on delete-vs-cancel semantics or failure behavior, but the operation is simple enough that this is not a blocking gap.
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 fully documents the only parameter with 100% coverage, describing 'id' as an 'Integer ID'. The description adds only 'by integer ID,' which repeats that information. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the meaning and there is nothing ambiguous to clarify.
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'), names the exact resource ('Persistent Instruction'), and specifies the identifying parameter ('integer ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like persistent_instructions_get_by_id and persistent_instructions_cancel at the purpose level.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool rather than persistent_instructions_cancel or other persistent-instruction operations. The delete-vs-cancel distinction, which is likely material, is left entirely to the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.