Delete a project. If the project has goals, pass force=true to cascade-delete them all; without force, the call is rejected with the goals count. Returns deleted title, slug, and goals_deleted count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | Удалить вместе со всеми целями (default: false — откажет если есть цели) | |
| projectId | Yes | UUID проекта |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds critical behavior: rejection with goals count unless force=true, and the return of deleted title, slug, and goals_deleted count, exceeding annotation context.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no redundant words. Each sentence contributes necessary information about action, condition, and return values.
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 delete tool with optional cascade, the description covers the main action, conditional behavior, rejection, and return values. With no output schema, the return info is valuable. Minor omission of behavior for non-existent project, but not critical.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description enhances this by explaining the conditional cascade semantics of force and the returned goals_deleted count, adding meaning beyond the schema.
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 'Delete a project' with a specific verb and resource. It also details the force parameter behavior, distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like project-update or project-get.
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 gives explicit guidance on when to use force: if the project has goals, pass force=true to cascade-delete; otherwise, the call is rejected. It doesn't name alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear distinct purposes (goal-create vs goal-update vs goal-delete), but the evidence-related tools (goal-add-evidence-text, goal-attach-evidence, goal-request-upload) and note tools (goal-add-note) have overlapping concepts that require careful reading of descriptions to differentiate. Overall, the detailed descriptions help resolve ambiguity, but a few tools could be easily confused.
The majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with a resource prefix (goal-create, goal-get, project-list, project-update). However, there are deviations like account-delete (noun-verb reversed), goal-todo, goal-summary, goal-tree, and goal-recent-unresolved that break the pattern. The inconsistency is minor but noticeable.
With 38 tools, this server has a very large surface area. Even for a complex planner with evidence management, the number exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. Many tools could potentially be consolidated (e.g., goal-add-note and goal-add-evidence-text), and the size may overwhelm agents during tool selection.
The tool set provides complete coverage of the domain: full goal lifecycle (create, get, update, delete, list, tree, move, reorder, block), evidence management (attach, request upload, text evidence, remove), acceptance criteria (add, update, remove, request change, resolve escalation), assumptions (add, update, remove, suggest, attach evidence), blockers, notes, project management (CRUD, dependencies), and configuration settings. No critical gaps are apparent.