project_delete

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the operation is destructive and permanent, but does not elaborate on what resources are affected (e.g., all project contents) or any prerequisites (e.g., ownership).

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action and requirement. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more informative.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), return values are covered. The description covers the destructive nature and confirmation need, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., impact on linked resources) and error conditions.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the schema for project_id or confirm. It only notes that confirm must be true, but does not explain the parameter's role or provide context for choosing values.

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 'Delete a project permanently', which clearly specifies the verb (delete) and resource (project), and adds 'permanently' to distinguish it from non-destructive operations like project_close.

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 mention 'Requires confirm=true' provides a condition for use, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., project_close for non-destructive termination).

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