Delete a project and choose how to handle linked tasks and time trackings. Irreversible action with three strategy options.
Delete a project. Requires a delete strategy to decide what happens to linked tasks and time trackings. This is irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The project ID to delete | |
| delete_strategy | Yes | What to do with linked tasks and time trackings on delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds irreversibility, which goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation, and explains that the delete strategy controls the fate of linked tasks and time trackings. This gives meaningful behavioral context beyond what the annotation alone conveys.
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 with no wasted words. The core action and key requirement are front-loaded, and the description is easy to parse quickly.
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 only 2 fully described parameters, a destructiveHint annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the essential extra context: irreversibility and the need for a delete strategy. Nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly is missing.
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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description mentions the delete strategy's purpose but does not add detail beyond the schema's enum descriptions, so it provides minimal additional value.
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 clearly states the action (Delete) and resource (project), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling delete tools for other resources. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or differentiate itself, so it falls short of a 5.
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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternative operations like closing or archiving a project. The only context is the delete strategy parameter, which is operational, not selective.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.