Remove an unbound architecture slot from a specification by providing spec ID, expected version, and slot key. Validates version to ensure accurate removal.
Delete one unbound architecture slot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec_id | Yes | ||
| slot_key | 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 the destructive nature via 'Delete' and the unbound precondition, but doesn't mention irreversibility, concurrency via expected_version, behavior if the slot is bound, or side effects.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and scope. Every word earns its place, though the terseness contributes to missing context elsewhere.
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 3-parameter operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves critical context unexplained: what an architecture slot is, what 'unbound' means, why expected_version is required, and what happens if the slot is bound or deletion fails.
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 names no parameters. It doesn't explain spec_id, slot_key, or expected_version, nor how they identify the slot or protect against concurrent modification.
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'), a specific resource ('one unbound architecture slot'), and singular scope ('one'), which distinguishes it from bulk operations like upsert_slots and from deleting an entire spec via yaaif_agent_spec_delete.
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 choose this over siblings. It doesn't mention yaaif_agent_spec_upsert_slot for adding/updating slots or yaaif_agent_spec_delete for whole-spec deletion, and it doesn't state prerequisites beyond the word 'unbound'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.