delete_project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say the deletion is irreversible, nor whether dependent assets (chapters, snapshots, tracks) are cascaded or orphaned.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision. There is no structure or front-loaded constraint because there is no content to structure.

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 on a container entity that has many dependent resources, the description omits the consequences an agent should know before calling it. The annotations carry the safety signal and the schema is complete, but the risk context of an irreversible project deletion is absent.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents project_id. The description contributes no additional meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The phrase 'Delete Studio Project' states a verb and a resource, but it is essentially the tool name and annotation title restated with the word 'Studio' added. That qualifier is the only real signal, and it is never explained as distinguishing this from the many dubbing_project_* and audio-native project tools in the sibling list.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (ownership/permissions), and no routing to alternatives such as deleting a dubbing project or archiving. An agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.

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