delete_project_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the authorization requirement that users can only delete their own entries, which is valuable. However, it does not state whether deletion is permanent, what happens on failure, or any side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a usage guideline. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 straightforward delete operation, the description provides adequate usage context and the key ownership restriction. While it does not mention return values or error behavior, the complete schema and simple action make this sufficient for effective tool selection.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-specific nuance beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Delete an entry from your project hive') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_hive and update_project_entry by specifying 'entry' rather than the whole hive or an update 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 explicit use cases ('Use when user wants to remove outdated, incorrect, or duplicate entries') and an ownership constraint ('Users can only delete their own entries'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the intent is clear.

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