delete_project

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the cascade delete behavior and irreversibility. It could mention error handling (e.g., if project not found) or permission requirements, but the key behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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: one for purpose, one for critical warning. No wasted words, structured efficiently.

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 delete tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action, cascade scope, and irreversibility. It could add detail on the optional actor_context parameter or specify return behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 50%: project_id has a schema description, but actor_context does not. The tool description adds no extra meaning for either parameter—'Delete a project' only implies project_id. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 'delete' and the resource 'project', and specifies the scope ('all its sessions, errors, and solutions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_session, delete_artifact, and delete_concept, which delete individual entities.

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 includes a strong warning about cascade deletion and irreversibility, guiding the agent on when to avoid using this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_session for partial deletions, though the warning implicitly suggests caution.

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