Delete Project

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and not read-only. The description adds the critical context that deleting a project also permanently deletes all its tasks and cannot be undone, which is important behavioral information beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and consequence. No filler words. Each sentence provides essential information.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description adequately covers the operation's effects: permanent deletion of project and tasks, irreversibility. It is complete for a delete operation, though it could optionally mention permissions or error conditions.

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 provides 100% coverage of the single parameter project_gid with description and example. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'delete' with resource 'project' and explains the consequence 'all its tasks' and irreversibility. This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_task or delete_section. Clear and unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for permanently deleting a project with cascade to tasks. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the context makes it obvious when to use. No exclusions are mentioned, but the irreversible warning implies caution.

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