delete-object

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

It adds nuance beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) by specifying that workspace projects must be archived before deletion, while personal projects can be deleted regardless. It also implies that deletion of projects is permanent and that archived projects are found via find-projects. It is consistent with the annotations and provides additional operational context.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it lists the entity types in the first clause, then gives a focused note about project deletion and the archived subset. No unnecessary words, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 range of deletable types and the nuance about project deletion, the description is quite complete. It covers the full scope, warns about the workspace archive rule, and references find-projects for archived ones. It omits explicit description of return behavior, but the presence of an output schema and the destructiveHint annotation make that acceptable. Overall, it provides sufficient operational context for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

Both parameters (id, type) are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including enum values for type. The description re-lists the allowed types and mentions the usage of ID, which adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description does not deepen the meaning of the parameters beyond what is given.

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 that it deletes a project, section, task, comment, label, filter, reminder, or location_reminder by ID. It explicitly lists all supported types and uses a specific verb ('Delete') with the resource, distinguishing it as the deletion tool among sibling tools.

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?

It provides clear conditional guidance for project deletion: archived vs. active, workspace (must be archived first) vs. personal (no prior requirement). It also directs to find archived projects via find-projects if needed, offering a context for use. No explicit 'when-not-to-use' is given because no other delete tool exists.

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