Deletes a module from a project using the project ID and module ID, removing it from the workspace.
Delete a module
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the module to delete | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the module |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a module' implies a destructive operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated data (like module issues), rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise at just three words with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic purpose.
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 destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what 'delete' means operationally, dependencies, permissions, or consequences. Given the complexity of deletion operations and the rich sibling tool ecosystem, this minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered.
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 100%, with both parameters (module_id and project_id) clearly documented in the schema as UUID identifiers. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.
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 'Delete a module' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling deletion tools like delete_cycle, delete_issue_type, delete_label, delete_module_issue, delete_state, or delete_worklog. The verb+resource is clear but lacks differentiation from similar 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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple deletion tools in the sibling list (delete_cycle, delete_issue_type, delete_label, delete_module_issue, delete_state, delete_worklog), the description offers no context about prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate scenarios for module deletion versus other deletion operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.