Remove a contact or company from a project by specifying the project ID, customer type, and customer ID.
Remove a customer (contact or company) from a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The project ID | |
| customer_id | Yes | Customer ID | |
| customer_type | Yes | Customer type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'remove' without detailing side effects, irreversibility, required permissions, failure conditions, or any impact on associated data. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the core action and target, making it immediately readable. Perfectly concise for the operation described.
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 simple removal operation with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but arguably sufficient to convey the tool's function. However, it lacks any mention of prerequisites, error behavior, or relationship to other project operations, and since there are no annotations, this leaves the agent without crucial contextual details.
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?
The schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (project ID, customer ID, customer type enum). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema states, merely reiterating that the customer can be a contact or company. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 (remove), the resource (customer) and the target (project), and specifies that the customer can be either a contact or company. This distinguishes it from sibling removal tools like remove_project_owner or remove_project_deal, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the customer must already be attached), nor does it reference the inverse operation (add_project_customer) or any other related tools. Usage context is entirely left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.