delete_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the permanence of the action ('permanently delete'), the irreversible nature ('cannot be undone'), and the critical safety requirement ('request explicit user confirmation'). This covers essential aspects like destructiveness and user interaction needs.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly convey the purpose and critical guidelines. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action and resource, and the second provides essential safety instructions without unnecessary details.

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 high complexity (destructive deletion), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, guidelines, and behavioral transparency effectively. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid project ID) or response details, leaving minor gaps in full context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'project_id' well-documented as 'The unique ID of the project to delete.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('permanently delete'), the resource ('your project from Serpstat'), and the method ('by project ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_project' and 'list_projects' by focusing on deletion rather than creation or listing.

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 explicitly provides usage guidelines with the critical instruction: 'ALWAYS request explicit user confirmation before executing.' It also warns 'This action cannot be undone,' which implicitly guides when not to use it (e.g., without confirmation or for reversible actions).

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