clause_deleteDelete a clause by ID or exact title and get the remaining count. No undo is available, and deleted starter clauses are not re-seeded.
Delete one clause by id or exact title and report how many are left. There is no undo, and a deleted starter clause is not re-seeded. Use clause_update to change one you want to keep.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Clause id or exact title |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deletion is irreversible, mentions the count report, and notes that starter clauses are not re-seeded. This covers key behavioral traits, though it doesn't detail permissions or error handling, which is a minor 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 three sentences, each adding value: the action, the irreversible consequence and result, and the alternative. Critical information is front-loaded with the purpose and side effects stated early. No wasted words.
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-parameter delete tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides necessary safety warnings and post-condition (count remaining). It doesn't specify return format, but given the simplicity, it's adequately complete. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error scenarios.
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%, so the schema already documents the 'id' parameter as 'Clause id or exact title'. The description repeats this information and adds that it reports how many are left, but it doesn't clarify the format or ambiguity resolution. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool deletes a clause by id or exact title and reports the count remaining. It distinguishes itself from siblings like clause_update by explicitly mentioning the alternative. The verb 'Delete' and resource 'clause' are specific and unambiguous.
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 explicitly says to use clause_update if the user wants to keep the clause, providing a clear alternative path. It also states when not to use this tool implicitly. This is direct usage guidance that helps an agent decide between delete and update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.