Delete a project, portfolio, or goal by ID in Yandex Tracker. Use entityType and entityId, then set confirm to true to confirm this destructive operation.
Delete a project, portfolio or goal by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Set to true to confirm this destructive/bulk operation | |
| entityId | Yes | Entity id | |
| entityType | Yes | Entity type: "project", "portfolio" or "goal" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive write. The description adds the entity types affected (project/portfolio/goal) but says nothing about reversibility or cascade effects. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.
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 efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the affected resources. It is arguably too terse, 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?
For a destructive 3-param tool with no output schema, the schema covers the parameters and annotations cover safety, so the core is present. However, the cascading/write behavior of deletion and the confirm-gating workflow are not explained, leaving the definition minimally complete.
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 100%, with the enum and the confirm flag fully documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes 'by id' and the entity types, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb (Delete) and the resource (project, portfolio or goal) plus the keying mechanism ('by id'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like delete_project, leaving ambiguity about when this generic tool applies.
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?
There is no guidance on when to prefer this over delete_project or other entity-specific deleters, and no mention of prerequisites such as the confirm flag being needed before success. 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.