Remove an explicit Scenario provider dependency from a spec using the current optimistic draft version. Specify the spec, provider, and expected version to update the release.
Remove one explicit Scenario provider dependency using the current optimistic draft version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec_id | Yes | ||
| expected_version | Yes | ||
| provider_spec_id | 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 does disclose the optimistic concurrency aspect ('current optimistic draft version'), implying a version-check behavior via expected_version. However, it does not mention that this is a destructive delete operation, nor any side effects like what happens if the dependency isn't found or if the version mismatches. It provides only minimal transparency.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, zero redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple delete operation.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and three required parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain parameter meanings beyond the version hint, does not describe any return value or error behavior, and offers no usage context compared to sibling operations. An agent would need additional information to call it correctly.
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 no parameter info exists in the schema. The description partially clarifies expected_version ('current optimistic draft version') but gives no explanation for spec_id or provider_spec_id, which are left to the agent to infer. The description does not fully compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' and identifies the resource ('explicit Scenario provider dependency') and the context ('using the current optimistic draft version'). This is clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like dependency_upsert (add/update) and dependencies (list/list view).
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description does not explain when a delete is appropriate or when to use upsert instead, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.