timeiq_project_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. While it implies destruction, it does not mention any side effects (e.g., cascading deletes), authorization needs, or the existence of a dry_run parameter that could preview the deletion. The omission of dry_run behavior is a notable 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 extremely concise, a single sentence that delivers the core purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 simplicity of the tool (delete by slug with optional dry_run), the description fails to explain critical behavior like what a dry_run does, what happens on success/failure, or any constraints. It is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the 'slug' parameter as identifying the project, but completely ignores the 'dry_run' parameter, leaving its purpose undocumented. Only partial value added.

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 action ('Delete'), the target resource ('an existing project'), and the identifier ('by its slug'). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like timeiq_project_activate or timeiq_project_update.

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 (e.g., timeiq_project_archive), no prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), and no caution about destructive effects. It simply says what it does without usage context.

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