Delete a Linear initiative by its ID, moving it to trash to remove it from active project tracking.
Delete an initiative (move to trash)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| initiativeId | Yes | The ID of the initiative to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'move to trash,' implying soft deletion, but does not clarify whether the trash is recoverable or for how long. Missing details like required permissions, side effects on related entities (e.g., projects, milestones), or error behavior. The added value beyond annotations is minimal.
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 extremely concise: a single sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to meaning, and the essential information (action and target) is front-loaded.
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?
Given that this is a destructive tool with an output schema available, the description lacks critical context such as reversibility, impact on linked objects, permission requirements, and error handling. The output schema may cover return values, but the behavioral and operational completeness is insufficient for an agent to use the tool safely.
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 the single parameter 'initiativeId.' The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 3 applies, and no extra value is provided.
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 'Delete an initiative (move to trash)' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (initiative), with a parenthetical clarification that it moves to trash rather than permanently removing. This distinguishes it from siblings like archiveInitiative and unarchiveInitiative, which have different lifecycle effects.
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 like archiveInitiative or updateInitiative. The description does not mention prerequisites, recovery options, or situations where deletion should be avoided. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.