Delete project

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the prerequisite that environments must be empty, the 409 failure response, and workarounds for non-empty projects. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a condition, failure detail, and workarounds. Every sentence adds value without 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 deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers prerequisites, failure scenarios, and alternative actions. Minor omission: no mention of return behavior or what happens on success (e.g., returns 204).

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 0%. The description only mentions 'with the provided ID' but does not explain the format, validation, or source of projectId. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 that the tool deletes a project and specifies it by ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling deletion tools by focusing on project-specific requirements, but does not explicitly name alternatives like render_delete_service or render_delete_environment.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: when you want to delete an entire project, with the condition that all environments must be empty. It also offers alternatives for non-empty projects (manual cleanup or Dashboard), adding practical context.

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