Project (destructive)

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

Adds behavior beyond the annotations: the plan + confirm_token two-phase apply, the non-current-project restriction, and that a snapshot can back up the timeline/project first. Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the remaining gaps (permissions, irreversibility of deletion, whether snapshots are recoverable) are smaller but still real.

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?

Front-loaded verb phrase, then a compact action table, then the confirmation and batching notes — every line carries information. The telegraphic style ('op.action (params; * = required)') costs a little readability but no sentence is waste.

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, polymorphic tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the action surface, the two-phase apply workflow, and the batching alternative. It does not say what exactly is lost when a folder or settings preset is deleted, or whether the snapshot default is safe, which is the main remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new information the schema cannot express: the per-action required parameter (name*) for each of the three actions, which the op object itself leaves as additionalProperties with only a generic pointer. It also flags the '*' = required convention.

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 ('Remove') plus the exact resource set via three enumerated actions (delete_folder, delete_project, delete_settings_preset), with a scope qualifier ('non-current project'). That is far more specific than the title alone, though it never names the sibling it is not (e.g. project_write, timeline_delete, item_delete).

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: use ONE batch_run when the calls are known in advance (a sequence, same change on several items), and consult describe_action for per-action params. It also explains the two-step invocation, but stops short of explicit when-not-to-use cases such as preferring project_write for renames.

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