delete_project

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the backup process (documents copied locally), the failure safety (nothing deleted if backup fails), and the irreversible nature (no undo). This enriches the behavioral model significantly.

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 well-structured sentences front-load the main action, present a safety warning, and detail the backup mechanism. Every clause serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the deletion scope, undo limitation, required confirmation, pre-deletion backup, and failure behavior. It is fully self-contained and explains all critical aspects a user needs to know before invoking.

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?

The schema covers 0% of parameter semantics, and the description explains confirm_name (must match exact current project name), but project_id is only implied by the tool name. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions for both parameters.

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) and the resource (a project and every document in it), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_document. The scope is explicit and specific.

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 a critical usage condition: confirm_name must be set to the exact current name. It also notes the absence of server-side undo, warning the user when to be cautious. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the destructive context is clear.

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