projects_deleteSoft-delete a project: it moves to the recycle bin for 30 days (cascading to its tasks) and can be brought back with projects_restore. Admin-only. Not permanent, so no confirmation phrase is required - but always tell the user which project you removed and that its tasks went with it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description goes far beyond by disclosing the 30-day recycle-bin retention, cascading deletion of tasks, restorability, admin-only restriction, and the no-confirmation-phrase policy. This gives the agent an accurate behavioral model without contradiction.
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 sentences deliver dense, useful information with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and each clause adds a meaningful operational detail: soft-delete, retention, cascade, restore path, permissions, and user communication.
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 single-parameter delete tool with destructive annotations, the description covers the key operational context: what gets deleted, what happens to tasks, recovery options, admin requirement, and the required user-facing disclosure. No important behavior is missing.
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?
There is only one parameter, project_id, and the schema provides its type. The description implicitly maps it to 'the project' being deleted but does not explicitly explain the parameter's meaning or format. Since the single parameter is self-evident from the tool name and title, this is adequate but not enhanced.
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?
Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Soft-delete a project', immediately distinguishing it from permanent deletion and from sibling tools like projects_restore. The recycle-bin and 30-day retention details further differentiate it from other delete tools.
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 clear context: admin-only, soft delete, non-permanent, and names projects_restore as the recovery path. It also instructs the agent to inform the user about which project and tasks were affected. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use the tool, but the soft-delete framing makes the usage conditions 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 follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.
The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.
With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.
The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.