delete-object

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds valuable context about project deletion rules (archive requirement) that annotations don't cover. Does not contradict annotations.

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, concise and front-loaded with the main action. Every word adds value. No fluff.

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 complexity of handling eight entity types, the description covers key behavioral differences (archive requirement). Output schema exists to explain return values, so omission is acceptable. Could mention idempotency or error cases, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (type, id) are well-described in the schema. Description lists allowed types (redundant with enum) and mentions 'by ID' but adds no new semantic details for parameters beyond the project archiving nuance which pertains to usage, not parameter meaning.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'delete' and specifies the eight entity types (project, section, task, etc.). Differentiates from sibling tools that create or update objects. No ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool and provides context: workspace projects require archiving before deletion, personal projects do not. Also hints at using find-projects to locate archived ones.

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