Delete a label from a standalone project. Automatically removed from any tasks that had it — no need to update those tasks' labelIds yourself first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| labelId | Yes | The label to delete, from that project's labels list. | |
| projectId | Yes | The project the label belongs to. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / labelId / descriptionAdded value: +"The label to delete, from that project's labels list."Input schema / properties / projectId / descriptionAdded value: +"The project the label belongs to."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable context by explaining the cascade effect: 'Automatically removed from any tasks that had it — no need to update those tasks' labelIds yourself first.' This discloses what gets affected beyond the label itself, which is crucial for an agent to predict consequences.
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 two concise sentences. The first states the primary action and scope; the second explains a critical side effect. There is no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, this description is complete. It explains the action, the scope, and the side effect, while the annotations cover destructiveness. Nothing essential is missing for an agent 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already fully documents projectId and labelId. The description does not add extra semantic detail about the parameters beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 the action ('Delete a label') and the resource ('from a standalone project'), and distinguishes it from sibling delete tools by specifying the target. It also adds a key behavioral detail (automatic removal from tasks) that further clarifies its specific purpose.
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 context is clear: this tool is used to delete a standalone label. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the name and description make the use case obvious. No exclusions are provided, but the guidance is not misleading.
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.