planka_delete_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action, but does not mention irreversibility, cascade deletion of boards/cards, idempotency, or not-found/error behavior. For a delete operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant detail. Every word contributes to the core operation.

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 one-parameter delete tool, the core operation and required input are stated. However, with no annotations and no output schema, important context such as consequences, success/failure behavior, and prerequisites is missing, leaving the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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 only parameter, id, is a string and the schema provides no description, so schema coverage is effectively 0%. The description's 'by id' reinforces that the parameter identifies the project, but it adds no information about where to obtain the id or its format. Minimal value is added beyond the self-explanatory schema property.

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'), the resource ('project'), and the selection method ('by id'), making it distinguishable from read/create/update siblings. It names the resource explicitly, though it does not explicitly contrast with planka_delete_card or planka_delete_board.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as first retrieving the project via planka_read_projects or distinguishing project deletion from board/card deletion. The description only restates the operation without contextual conditions.

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