bugherd_delete_project

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

The description explicitly labels the tool as destructive and states that deletion is permanent, which covers the primary behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it could be more detailed about side effects (e.g., deleting associated data beyond tasks) or required permissions, but the warning is sufficient.

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 is extremely concise—one sentence with a warning symbol—and every word is meaningful. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and risk without fluff.

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 simple deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it is destructive and permanent. It could mention that the action cannot be undone or requires specific privileges, but it meets minimum completeness for the task.

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 input schema describes the only parameter (project_id) clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, and schema coverage is 100%, so 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 it deletes a project and all its tasks permanently, with a prominent 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like bugherd_delete_attachment.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., archiving) or prerequisites. It does not mention when not to use it or provide context about project ownership or permissions.

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