Remove an unwanted mapping from an IPT resource by providing shortname and row type; confirmation prevents accidental deletion.
[writes to the IPT] Delete a mapping.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mid | No | ||
| confirm | No | Must be true to actually perform this action | |
| rowType | Yes | ||
| shortname | Yes | Resource shortname |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says '[writes to the IPT]' implying mutation, but it fails to mention that the operation is destructive, irreversible, or that the 'confirm' parameter must be true. Critical safety context is missing.
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 extremely terse, which is concise, but it omits essential details like the confirmation requirement and parameter roles. It's under-specified for a destructive operation, so conciseness trades off necessary completeness.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't mention the confirm gate, required parameters, or any side effects, leaving an agent unable to safely invoke it.
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 description adds no information about parameters. Schema coverage is only 50% (confirm and shortname have descriptions), but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented mid and rowType. The confirm flag's role is only in the schema, not reinforced in the description.
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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('mapping'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_resource or delete_source. However, it doesn't elaborate on what a mapping is in this IPT context, so it's clear but minimal.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_resource or set_mapping. It doesn't mention prerequisites, safe conditions, or scenarios where deletion should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.