deleteIconDelete Icon
Remove the project icon and sync hosted-page metadata. The stored image file is left in place.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | Application-level status code returned by this API. | |
| data | No | Always null. Removing the icon does not return the image. | |
| success | No | Indicates whether the request completed successfully. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / dataAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {},
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "description": "Always null. Removing the icon does not return the image."
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lowered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the two non-obvious side effects: hosted-page metadata is synced while the stored image file is left in place. That clarifies what is and isn't destroyed.
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, front-loaded with the action and immediately qualified by the side effects. No redundant restatement beyond the unavoidable title echo.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the scope caveats (metadata sync, file retention) that an agent needs to set expectations, leaving only minor gaps around auth or error behavior.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise for the description to compensate for, and the schema is fully self-describing.
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/Remove) and resource (project icon), distinguishing it from siblings like deleteLogo and getIcon. The name plus title plus description line up without ambiguity.
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?
Usage is implied by the destructive delete framing, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are named, even though siblings such as getIcon and createIcon form an obvious cluster. An agent can infer the intent but gets no routing guidance.
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.