delete_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the cascading destructive behavior (schemas, tables, relationships) but lacks details on irreversibility, required permissions, or other affected entities like branches or sync jobs.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with two sentences covering the essential information. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is a simple delete with one parameter, but the description omits critical safety context such as reversibility, confirmation, or side effects on other data. The cascading scope is mentioned, but for a destructive tool this is insufficient.

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 0% and the description only restates 'project_uuid: UUID проекта,' adding minimal meaning. It does not explain how to obtain the UUID, constraints, or related context.

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 uses a specific verb 'delete' with a clear resource 'project' and specifies the scope: 'together with all its schemas, tables, and relationships.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_schema or delete_table.

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 implies usage for deleting an entire project and its contents but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. It is clear from context but not explicitly stated.

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