Delete a specific Linear project update by providing its ID to remove it from your project timeline.
Delete a Linear project update
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the project update to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as cascading effects or authentication needs.
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 sentence, which is concise but overly minimal. It could include brief usage context or parameter clarification without being verbose.
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 the tool's destructiveness and existence of sibling operations like archiveProjectUpdate, the description lacks sufficient context for an agent to differentiate and apply safely. Output schema exists, but behavior and decision cues are 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% (single 'id' parameter with description). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 'Delete a Linear project update', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like archiveProjectUpdate by implying irreversible deletion, but the differentiation is not explicit.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like archiveProjectUpdate or updateProjectUpdate. The description does not mention prerequisites, consequences, or context for choosing delete over other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.