projects_delete_placeholder_resourceDeletes a placeholder resource by ID from Smartsheet Resource Management. Requires confirm=true because the action is destructive and cannot be undone.
Delete a placeholder resource (Destructive: requires confirm=True).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| placeholder_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 non-idempotent, so the destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds the confirm=True requirement, which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotation, but it says nothing about irreversibility, side effects on existing assignments, or failure modes.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the destructive/confirm caveat is attached directly to the action. It is arguably too terse given the 0% schema coverage, 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, and the low parameter count keeps complexity down. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no mention of placeholder_id semantics or deletion side effects, the description leaves real gaps for a destructive operation.
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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It partially explains confirm (must be True to proceed), but the required placeholder_id parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, and the accepted int|string form is unaddressed.
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?
Specific verb (Delete) plus a distinct resource (placeholder resource), which clearly separates it from the many other delete siblings such as projects_delete_project or projects_delete_assignment. It does not need much sibling differentiation since the resource type is unique, but it adds no scope detail beyond the name.
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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisite (e.g., must first list placeholder resources), and no guidance on alternatives to deletion. The only usage signal is the inline confirm=True requirement, which is more of a precondition than routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.