Delete or archive a specific ZenML resource by its exact UUID, using bounded destructive options to prevent unintended removal.
Delete or archive one exact UUID using bounded destructive options.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | No | ||
| model_id | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| artifact_id | No | ||
| resource_id | Yes | ||
| resource_type | Yes | ||
| component_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation is limited to one exact UUID desu, and there is an archive alternative. It also conveys that destructive options are bounded, which is valuable beyond the raw annotation.
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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope ('Delete or archive one exact UUID') and wastes no words.
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?
Despite having an output schema and annotations, the tool has 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no enums. The description does not explain how to select resource_type, which parameters apply to each resource type, or when deletion versus archiving is appropriate. For a destructive operation, this is incomplete.
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 must compensate for the 7 parameters. The only hint is 'one exact UUID', which loosely maps to resource_id, but resource_type, payload, model_id, project_id, artifact_id, and component_type are left entirely unexplained. This is a severe gap for a destructive tool.
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 or archive') applied to 'one exact UUID', which identifies the resource by ID. It conveys destructive scope and separates this tool from read/list/create tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus zenml_update_resource or zenml_action_resource. The phrase 'using bounded destructive options' implies a destructive context, but there is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.