delete_projectDelete an empty project or deal from your accounting ledger. Safely prevents removal when transactions, invoices, bills, or other linked records remain.
Delete an empty project/deal. Refuses if transactions, invoices, bills or other records are still linked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No | Project ID (preferred if known) | |
| project_name | No | Project name to resolve if id is not known |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds the specific refusal condition (refuses if transactions, invoices, bills, or other records are linked), which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction detected.
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?
Two sentences with zero fluff. The action and the critical constraint are front-loaded, and the refusal condition is stated concisely. Every word earns its place.
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 operation with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral requirements: deletion only for empty projects and refusal when linked records exist. It doesn't detail return values or idempotency, but annotations cover idempotency and the destructive nature is implied. This is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.
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 both parameters (project_id and project_name) already well-documented. The description does not add additional meaning or clarification about which parameter to prefer, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.
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) and the resource (project/deal), and adds a critical scoping condition ('empty project/deal'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_project and get_projects without needing to open schemas.
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 explicitly states the precondition (empty project/deal) and the refusal behavior when linked records exist. This guides when to use the tool, though it does not name alternative tools for non-empty projects. The condition is clear enough for an agent to decide correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.