Delete Project

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: exactly what data is destroyed across three stores, and that the project will be re-indexed on the next cycle if configured, which clarifies reversibility. It does not discuss permissions or confirmation requirements, but it adds substantial concrete detail for a mutation operation.

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 three tightly packed sentences with zero waste: scope first, recovery behavior second, usage guidance last. Every sentence earns its place and the most important destructive detail is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations that already cover safety characteristics, the description provides everything an agent needs: precise destruction scope, recovery behavior, and a usage trigger. Nothing material is missing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the two parameters (group and project) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only refers generally to a 'specific project' and adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), a precisely scoped resource ('all indexed data for a specific project'), and enumerates the underlying stores affected: Qdrant chunks, SQLite metadata, and query cache. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools such as term_delete and arch_delete, which target different resources.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when a project's index is corrupted or stale, giving a clear triggering condition. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the explicit alternatives expected for a 5.

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