Delete all recorded error details for a workspace while preserving already-written reports, so you can reset diagnostics without losing report history.
Delete every recorded error detail. Reports already written are kept.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspaceId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the risk profile is known. The description adds real value by scoping the blast radius ('every recorded error detail') and confirming written reports are preserved, but it says nothing about permissions, recoverability, or whether the wipe is workspace-scoped.
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, no filler, with the destructive action and its exception front-loaded.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency and no output schema, the description covers what is removed and what is retained. The main gap is workspace scoping of the deletion.
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?
Only one parameter (workspaceId) exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden — yet it never mentions that deletion is scoped to a workspace, and 'every recorded error detail' could read as global. The sole parameter is a simple ID, keeping the omission from being severe.
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?
States a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('every recorded error detail'), and the second sentence clarifies scope. It is distinguishable from get_diagnostics/set_diagnostics by its clearing semantics, though no sibling is named.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to clear diagnostics versus reading them with get_diagnostics, nor any stated preconditions. The only scope hint is that previously written reports survive, which is behavioral rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.