Delete project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action and the ID parameter, but fails to disclose side effects like permanent deletion, cascading impacts on associated resources, or error states (e.g., project not found, already deleted). No mention of destructive behavior or reversibility.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and constraint. Every word serves a purpose: verb, object, method, and feature flag. There is no unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite having an output schema (reducing need to explain return values), the description lacks critical context such as idempotency, error handling, or dependencies. It doesn't differentiate from other delete tools or explain the impact on related entities. The 'Enterprise feature' is useful but insufficient for complete understanding.

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% for the single parameter 'projectId' with a basic description 'Project ID'. The tool description adds no additional context (e.g., format, source, or examples) beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 applies as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 verb 'delete', the resource 'project', and the identifier method 'by ID'. It also notes the 'Enterprise feature' constraint, which distinguishes it from non-enterprise tools. Among siblings like n8n_create_project and n8n_update_project, its purpose is unambiguous.

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. It does not specify prerequisite conditions (e.g., project must exist, user must have permissions), nor does it indicate when not to use it (e.g., if project has active workflows). The 'Enterprise feature' note hints at a constraint but doesn't direct usage.

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