Delete Project Location

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

The description emphasizes that the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, which aligns with the destructiveHint annotation. However, it does not add new behavioral context beyond what the annotations already convey (e.g., idempotency, open world). No contradictions with annotations. The description reinforces the destructiveness but doesn't disclose potential side effects or authorization requirements.

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 contains redundant statements: 'This cannot be undone' appears twice (once explicitly, once as 'This action cannot be undone'), and 'Permanently removes the specified Project records' is repeated. This wastes space and could be condensed into one clear sentence. The API endpoint line is domain-specific and may not be useful for an AI agent.

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 delete tool without an output schema, the description explains the effect (permanent deletion) and required parameters. However, it does not mention what response to expect (e.g., success message or empty body) or any post-deletion behavior. It includes an API endpoint, which is atypical for MCP descriptions. Overall, it is adequate but not thorough.

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% coverage for both parameters (project_id, location_id) with clear descriptions. The description lists the required parameters but does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and no bonus value is 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 it deletes a 'specified Location' and 'Project records', matching the tool name. The verb 'deletes' and resource 'Location' are specific. However, the phrase 'Project records' is slightly ambiguous—it might cause confusion about what exactly is deleted (the location record vs. project records). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools, but the name and context make it reasonably clear.

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 says 'Use this to permanently delete the specified Project records', which indicates when to use it. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., delete_location, bulk_delete). The mention of required parameters is helpful but does not substitute for usage boundaries.

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