Delete a Redmine project permanently by providing its ID or identifier and confirming the destructive action.
Delete project (DELETE /projects/:id.json). Requires confirm: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | project id or identifier | |
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to perform destructive action |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('Delete project') and the confirm requirement, but does not elaborate on side effects, reversibility, or permissions. Adequate but minimal.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence containing the action, endpoint, and key requirement. No wasted words; it is highly efficient.
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 delete tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential calling information (endpoint, confirm requirement). It lacks notes on side effects or prerequisites, but these are not critical for basic invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented. The description adds 'Requires confirm: true', which reinforces the schema but does not add new meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already explains the parameters fully.
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 states a specific action, 'Delete project', with the REST endpoint 'DELETE /projects/:id.json' and the confirm requirement. It clearly differentiates from siblings like redmine_project_archive or redmine_project_update by naming the destructive delete operation.
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 does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus alternatives like archive/unarchive, which serve as less destructive options. It only mentions the confirm parameter, not usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.