Delete a specific unreferenced requirement from a spec. Removes it from its slots first to ensure clean removal.
Delete one unreferenced requirement. Remove it from its slots first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| req_key | Yes | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It communicates destructive intent and a necessary prior step, but does not explain failure behavior if the requirement is still referenced, whether deletion is permanent, or how the expected_version parameter gates the 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?
Two short sentences say exactly what the tool does and what must happen first. No filler, and the core action is 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 multi-parameter deletion tool with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics and key behavioral details such as concurrency checking and effect on slot references, leaving an agent to guess.
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%, so the description should define the three parameters. It only hints at 'requirement' and 'slots' without mapping them to req_key, spec_id, or expected_version, and expected_version remains entirely unexplained.
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 names a specific operation ('delete one unreferenced requirement') and identifies the resource type (requirement), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that delete slots (yaaif_agent_spec_delete_slot) or whole specs (yaaif_agent_spec_delete). The 'one' qualifier also clarifies scope.
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?
It gives a clear precondition: remove the requirement from its slots first, and confines the tool to 'unreferenced' requirements. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the slot-removal instruction effectively routes the agent to slot-deletion operations first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.