Delete project

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already flags destructiveness, and the description adds meaningful context: it enumerates exactly what gets destroyed (keywords, rank history, settings) and emphasizes irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'). This goes beyond the annotation by specifying the full blast radius and requiring user confirmation.

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 sentences, zero waste. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines scope and consequences, the second sets the usage gate. Front-loaded with the primary verb and action.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key context: what is destroyed, irreversibility, and user-confirmation requirement. The idempotency_key parameter is not described, and there's no mention of post-deletion state or error handling, but for a delete operation with the destructive annotation and clear scope, this is reasonably complete.

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 50%, with project_id documented in the schema (including a pattern and pointer to list_projects) but idempotency_key undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't explain idempotency_key semantics. However, the description clarifies the destructive outcome tied to project_id, adding operational meaning. The undocumented idempotency_key is a minor gap given schema coverage of the key parameter.

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 'Permanently delete a project and all of its keywords, rank history, and settings.' It uses a specific verb (delete) with a specific resource (project) and enumerates the cascading scope, distinguishing it clearly from sibling deletion tools like delete_keyword, delete_saved_view, and delete_alert_rule, which operate on different resources.

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 explicitly states 'Use only after the user confirms deletion,' providing a clear precondition for safe usage. It doesn't name specific alternative tools, but given the large sibling list and the destructive nature, the confirmation requirement is the key usage gate. Exclusions/alternatives are not explicitly named, but the cascading scope makes the use case self-evident.

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