deleteProject

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 merely states 'Delete a project' without mentioning reversibility, cascade effects on related nodes/links, permission requirements, or any confirmation steps. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 with no fluff, but it essentially restates the tool name without adding useful information. It is appropriately short, but not effective enough to earn a higher score because it lacks substance and is essentially a tautology.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success, whether the operation is idempotent, or how associated data (e.g., nodes linked to the project) is affected. The simplicity of the parameter schema does not compensate for this missing behavioral 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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a description stating the project ID should be kebab-case and provides a pattern, so schema coverage is high. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 'Delete a project' clearly identifies the action (delete) and the resource (project), distinguishing it from sibling tools like createProject and updateProject. However, it lacks any additional scope or specific behavior (e.g., permanent deletion) that would fully contrast it with alternatives, so it doesn't reach a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as updateProject or removeNode. There are no stated prerequisites, side effects, or indications of whether this should be used for soft-delete or hard-delete scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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