projects_delete_assignmentDeletes a resource assignment in Smartsheet Resource Management by assignment ID; set confirm=True to authorize this destructive action.
Delete a resource assignment (Destructive: requires confirm=True).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| assignment_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds concrete value beyond them by stating the confirm=True requirement, which is an actionable behavioral gate absent from the structured fields. It omits side effects such as cascading effects on subtasks or irreversibility guarantees.
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?
A single short sentence with the destructive nature and guard requirement front-loaded; no filler. It is perhaps too terse for a mutation tool, but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a destructive mutation with 0% parameter coverage, the description should address identifier semantics and any cascade/permission implications; those gaps leave it merely adequate.
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 0% for 2 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It explains the confirm parameter's required value, but the key input assignment_id (integer|string, its meaning, and acceptable forms) is left entirely undocumented.
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+resource (delete + resource assignment), which is distinguishable from sibling deletes like projects_delete_project, projects_delete_assignment_subtask, and projects_delete_placeholder_resource. It does not explicitly note how it differs from the subtask-level delete, so sibling differentiation is left to 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?
The description only adds the precondition 'requires confirm=True', which implies the tool is guarded and deliberate, but it gives no guidance on when to delete an assignment versus alternatives (e.g., updating or reassigning). Usage conditions are implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.