Delete a specified folder from a project by providing the project ID and folder ID. Removes unwanted folders to keep project structure organized.
Delete a folder from a project.
Args: project_id: The project UUID. folder_id: The folder UUID to delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects (e.g., deleting subfolders or files). The destructive nature is implied but not explicit.
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 brief and front-loaded with the action. It wastes no words, but the brevity leaves gaps. It earns a high score for conciseness, though it sacrifices completeness.
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 is a destructive delete operation with no annotations and minimal schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't mention what happens to contents, reversibility, or required permissions. The output schema exists but the description doesn't hint at what to expect.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It simply repeats parameter names (project_id, folder_id) with minimal context (e.g., 'project UUID'), adding little beyond the schema. It doesn't explain how to obtain these IDs or any format constraints.
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 a folder from a project' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like wetrack_delete_project_file and wetrack_create_project_folder, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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, such as deleting a project file or folder creation. It implies a straightforward delete operation but lacks context like prerequisites or consequences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.