zentao_delete_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'delete project' without detailing side effects (e.g., cascading deletions, irreversibility, or required permissions). The agent lacks information about the operation's impact beyond the obvious deletion.

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 short (one phrase). While it is concise, it lacks structure (no full sentence, no explanation). It serves its purpose but could be improved without adding much length.

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 tool is a delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description minimally covers the action. It does not explain expected outcomes (e.g., success response) or any constraints. More context is needed for an agent to use it confidently.

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% (the parameter 'id' is described as '项目 ID' in the schema). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (delete) and the resource (project) in Chinese. It is distinct from sibling tools like zentao_delete_feedback or zentao_delete_user, which target different entities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many delete tools in the sibling list, but the description does not specify prerequisites (e.g., project state) or conditions for safe use.

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