Delete an empty agent spec scenario that is not bound to catalogs, inactive, and not a required release dependency. Ensures safe removal only when no dependencies exist.
Delete an empty Scenario (Agent Spec). Allowed only when it has no current catalog bindings, is not active, and is not a required release dependency of another scenario.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec_id | Yes | ||
| expected_version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does 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 that the operation is only allowed under specific conditions (no catalog bindings, not active, not a release dependency), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare 'delete'. It does not mention irreversibility or permissions, but the constraints are valuable.
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 a single efficient sentence that states the action and the key constraints without any fluff. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word adds value.
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?
The description captures the core purpose and preconditions but is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly. The expected_version parameter is unexplained (likely a concurrency guard), and behavior on failure or consequences of deletion are not covered. With no output schema or annotations, the description leaves important operational details unresolved.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain either parameter. 'spec_id' and 'expected_version' are entirely undocumented in prose, so an agent has no additional meaning beyond the raw schema names. The description fails to compensate for the lack of 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 a specific action ('Delete') and a specific resource ('Scenario (Agent Spec)') with a distinguishing qualifier ('empty'). It is easy for an agent to tell this apart from sibling tools like yaaif_agent_spec_update or yaaif_agent_spec_delete_requirement, even without opening the schema.
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 provides preconditions ('Allowed only when...') that act as usage restrictions, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when an agent should choose a different tool. The usage context is implied rather than directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.