delete_project

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses no server-side undo, mandatory local backup, atomic failure behavior, and specific upload-related blockers. This is substantial behavioral context that an agent needs before invoking 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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place. The core destructive warning is front-loaded, followed by safety guarantees and edge-case blockers. No redundant or vague wording.

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 an irreversible destructive operation, the description covers preconditions, failure behavior, backup guarantees, and blocking edge cases. No output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. The description is sufficiently complete 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains that confirm_name must be set to the project's exact current name. project_id is not explicitly described but is inferable from the tool's purpose and parameter title.

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 is explicit: 'Delete a project and everything in it' names the verb, the resource, and the scope of the deletion. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools that target documents or scheduled tasks.

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 strong usage context: confirm_name must match the exact project name, backup must succeed before deletion, and certain uploads block deletion. It does not explicitly compare against alternative tools, but the uniqueness of the resource makes that unnecessary.

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