Delete multiple projects at once with required confirmation, and get counts of successful deletions plus any failed project IDs.
Delete multiple projects in a single operation. Returns count of successfully deleted projects and any failed IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectIds | Yes | Array of project IDs to delete | |
| confirmDelete | Yes | Confirm deletion (required to be true for safety) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses partial-failure semantics by stating the return includes a success count and failed IDs, which implies operations may partially succeed. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or whether deletion is atomic.
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 tight sentences with zero waste; the operation is front-loaded and the return contract follows immediately. 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?
For a destructive bulk tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape well. It still leaves the irreversibility/permission profile unstated, which matters for an unflagged bulk delete, so it is not fully complete.
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%, so both parameters (projectIds, confirmDelete) are already documented in the schema, including the safety rationale for confirmDelete. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (projects) with clear bulk scope ('multiple projects in a single operation'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the singular delete_project sibling. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so the differentiation requires a small inference.
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 on when to use this over delete_project or any alternative, and no stated preconditions beyond the schema's confirmDelete flag. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.