delete_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies destructiveness, but it does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or requires special permissions. It also does not mention any side effects or partial failure behavior in batch deletion. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 well-structured with a brief overview, a bullet explaining the parameter format, and examples. The 'Args' section slightly duplicates schema information but the examples add value. It is concise without unnecessary filler, though it could be tightened by removing the explicit 'Args' repetition.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one parameter, and an output schema exists (though not shown), so return values need not be described. However, given the lack of annotations and the destructive nature, the description would benefit from stating permanence or irreversible effects, and clarifying behavior for partial batch failures. It covers input well but misses important operational context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the 'projects' parameter, stating it can be a string or a list of strings, and provides clear examples for both single and multiple project IDs. This goes beyond the schema's basic type definition and gives practical usage guidance.

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 begins with 'Delete one or more projects', which is a specific verb (delete) and resource (projects). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_tasks by naming the resource. The additional detail about supporting both single and batch deletion further clarifies the scope.

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 clear guidance on how to pass arguments (single ID vs list) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools like delete_tasks. The context for using this tool is implied by its name rather than explicitly explained.

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