delete_project

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool deletes a project and returns True, but omits key aspects like irreversibility, error handling for non-existent projects, or any side effects. This leaves ambiguity about the destructive nature.

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 with a front-loaded main verb phrase followed by a structured Args and Returns section. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the main action, parameter, and return value. However, it lacks completeness on error conditions, success confirmation format, and any prerequisites. The output schema is described in text but not formally defined.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It restates the parameter name in the Args section but adds no new meaning (e.g., format, valid range, or source). The one parameter lacks any semantic enrichment beyond what the schema already provides.

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 explicitly states 'Delete an OpenRefine project' with a clear verb and resource. It uniquely identifies the action from siblings like create_project, apply_operations, and export_csv, which are all distinct operations.

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 implies when to use (to delete a project) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No context about prerequisites or consequences is given. The sibling tools are different, but no comparative advice is offered.

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