arcane_delete_project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must convey the full behavioral profile. It does say 'delete/destroy', which implies destructive intent, but it does not disclose the scope of destruction (e.g., whether associated containers, volumes, or networks are also removed), permanence, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 a short, front-loaded phrase with no redundant words. 'Delete/destroy' and 'Docker Compose project' together convey the essential action and target concisely.

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 destructive nature of the tool, the absence of annotations, and a minimal schema, the description is under-specified. It lacks information about return values, side effects, or how environmentId relates to the project deletion. The description is not complete enough for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (projectId, environmentId) with no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not mention them at all. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from parameter names.

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 'Delete/destroy a Docker Compose project' clearly states the action (delete/destroy) and the resource (Docker Compose project). It distinguishes this tool from sibling project tools like create, update, deploy, and stop by indicating a destructive removal operation.

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 individual containers or volumes. It does not mention prerequisites, nor does it warn against use in certain scenarios. This leaves the agent without context for selecting this over other destructive tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.