sprite_delete_projectRemove a project from the in-memory session without deleting exported files. Use it to clear active project data while preserving previously exported assets.
Remove a project from the in-memory session (does not delete exported files).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Project id to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important behavior: deletion is session-scoped and exported files survive. It omits whether unsaved work is lost irreversibly, whether the active project can be deleted, and what happens to dependent state (layers/frames) — all material for a destructive tool.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the destructive-scope caveat in parentheses. Nothing redundant remains.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers scope but not confirmability, reversibility, or error conditions. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about consequences of deleting the active or unsaved project.
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%, and the single 'project' param is already documented as the project id to delete. The description adds no format, id-source, or validation guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Remove a project') and scopes it to the 'in-memory session', which sets it apart from file-level operations. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling lifecycle tools like sprite_save_project, sprite_load_project, or sprite_new_project, so sibling differentiation is only partial.
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?
Usage is only implied by the parenthetical about exported files; there is no explicit 'use this when' or named alternative (e.g., to persist a project first, use sprite_save_project). The agent must infer the lifecycle context from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.