Destroy project

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false. The description adds value by stating the action 'cannot be undone', highlighting optional volume removal with 'DATA LOSS!' warning. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that immediately states risk and purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's critical nature and functionality.

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 tool's destructive function and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, risk, and optional behavior. It does not detail return values or side effects on related resources, but overall is sufficient for an agent to decide on 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description reiterates the volume removal option but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 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 clearly states the tool destroys a project, including containers and optionally volumes, using the specific verb 'destroy' and resource 'project'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'arcane_project_down' by emphasizing irreversibility and volume removal option.

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 warns of critical risk and irreversibility, implying use only for permanent deletion. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like 'arcane_project_down' or 'arcane_project_stop', leaving the agent to infer when destruction is appropriate versus other actions.

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