project_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it declares the operation irreversible, specifies that a single transaction removes a detailed set of child entities, and explicitly lists what is kept (agent rows, workflow archives, channel messages). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a cascading delete.

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 front-loaded with the core action and the critical irreversibility warning, then follows with the deletion scope and retention exceptions. Every sentence earns its place; the enumeration of affected and preserved entities is justified for a high-impact destructive operation.

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?

Given the destructive complexity, a simple one-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers the cascade scope, irreversibility, and retention behavior, so no return-value or permission details are missing from the description's perspective.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the sole parameter with the exact-id constraint ("names are not resolved"). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Delete a project") and immediately defines the cascading scope ("everything filed under it"). It clearly distinguishes this from project_update or project_create by being a destructive removal tool, even without naming siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the strong warning "Irreversible," which tells the agent this is a permanent removal operation. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as project_update or dismiss_project_registration.

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