project_deleteDelete a local project and unlink its time entries without removing them. Specify the project ID to remove it locally while preserving entry data.
Borra un proyecto local. No borra sus entries: solo las desvincula del proyecto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id del proyecto local a borrar |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the key behavioral nuance: the project is deleted but entries are only unlinked, not deleted. This is valuable beyond what the schema shows.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately clarifying the critical nuance. Zero wasted words.
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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, the scope, and the key side-effect. No additional information is needed.
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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline is 3 given high coverage.
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 tool deletes a local project and explicitly distinguishes it from deleting entries by noting it only unlinks them. This is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like delete_entry.
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 implies when to use it (when you want to delete a project but keep its entries), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides some context but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.