delete_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by labeling the action as 'DESTRUCTIVE and irreversible,' requiring explicit confirm: true. It also specifies the return value. Missing details on auth requirements or rate limits, but these are not critical for a deletion tool.

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: two sentences covering action, scope, alternatives, and return value. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 simple params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, scope, destructive nature, required confirmation, alternatives, and return format. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema already describes both parameters (project_id and confirm) with clear meanings. The description reinforces the need for confirm: true but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to 100% schema coverage.

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 the tool deletes a Kanboard project and all its associated items (tasks, columns, swimlanes). It distinguishes from siblings like remove_project_user and update_project, which handle partial removals or edits.

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 mentions when to use alternatives (remove_project_user for member removal, update_project for edits), providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool beyond the alternatives.

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