Delete a project

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive, so the description's 'permanently delete' reinforces that signal. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the deletion covers the 'entire' project and requires human confirmation, which is operationally valuable.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose and a critical constraint with no wasted words. The most important information (permanence) is front-loaded, and the human-confirmation requirement follows naturally.

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 single-parameter destructive action, the description covers the key operational facts: what is deleted, that it is permanent, and that confirmation is required. It could add pointers to alternative tools or permission prerequisites, but those are not essential for correct invocation.

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?

There is only one required parameter, projectId, and the description does not explicitly explain it. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory and the description's reference to 'an Overleaf project' makes the target clear. Minimal compensation is needed for such a simple schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('entire Overleaf project'), with 'permanently' signaling scope and irreversibility. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like archive_project and delete_entity, even without naming them 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?

The phrase 'Requires human confirmation' gives important contextual guidance about when this tool should be invoked, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over archive_project or delete_entity. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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