Delete Project

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the action is permanent ('cannot be undone') and cascades to all tasks, which is critical context beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention permissions or return behavior, 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 is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundant 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?

For a simple destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, the scope of the deletion, and its irreversibility. It could mention prerequisites or confirmation requirements, but the core context is sufficient.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter project_id with a clear description. The tool description adds contextual scope (deletes tasks) but does not add new parameter-level semantics, 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 states 'Permanently delete a project and all its tasks' with a specific verb (delete), resource (project), and scope (all its tasks), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_task or update_project. It is 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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to permanently delete a project), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It is clear enough for basic use but lacks direct guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to delete_task.

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