betterpost_delete_projectPermanently deletes a project and everything in it — its sources, stories, and content. Cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deleted | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the cascading deletion (sources, stories, content) and reinforcing irreversibility. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope. No wasted words; every part 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?
Given the output schema exists and the tool is straightforward (one param, clear destructive effect), the description covers all essential context: what gets deleted, permanence, and scope. No gaps.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden for the single parameter projectId. It implicitly identifies the project to delete but adds no detail about its format, source, or constraints beyond what the schema's format and pattern already provide.
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 verb 'deletes', the resource 'project', and specifies the scope 'and everything in it — its sources, stories, and content'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_content that only remove content.
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 notes the permanence ('Cannot be undone'), implying caution. However, it does not directly compare to siblings like delete_content or update_project to guide selection. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose—project management, source and story handling, content generation, settings, and usage—with no overlapping functionality. The descriptions clearly delineate when to use each tool.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'betterpost_<verb>_<noun>', making the set predictable and easy to navigate. The naming convention is uniform throughout.
With 23 tools, the server covers a comprehensive content generation workflow without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a necessary function, and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of project management, source acquisition, story curation, content generation/derivation, and settings configuration. There are no obvious gaps that would cause an agent to fail in typical use cases.