Soft-delete an Ultralytics project by slug, owner/slug, or ul:// URI. Moves it to trash for a bounded restorable window.
Soft-delete a project by slug, owner/slug, or project ul:// URI. Deleted projects land in trash and remain restorable for a bounded window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Project ref by slug, owner/slug, or ul:// URI. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.15Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.1.12Input schema / properties / project / descriptionPrevious value: -"Project ref by id, slug, username/slug, or ul:// URI."New value: +"Project ref by slug, owner/slug, or ul:// URI."v0.1.6Input schema / properties / project / descriptionAdded value: +"Project ref by id, slug, username/slug, or ul:// URI."v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that this is a SOFT delete, that the project lands in trash, and that it stays restorable for a bounded window. The only gap is that the window length and permission requirements are unspecified.
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, no waste, and the most important fact (soft-delete with a restorable window) is front-loaded right after the verb. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description still conveys the essential outcome (trash, restorable) for a single-parameter mutation tool. What is missing is concrete detail on the restorable window and any confirmation of what the call returns on success.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description's restatement of the accepted ref formats adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Soft-delete a project') plus the accepted identifier forms (slug, owner/slug, ul:// URI), which lets an agent identify the tool without opening the schema. It is clearly distinguishable from projects_create, projects_get, and the datasets_delete siblings.
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 (removing a project) and hints at recoverability, but never states prerequisites, when to prefer an alternative, or how it differs from hard deletion. Usage is inferable rather than specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.