delete_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Permanently delete' conveys irreversibility, and the note about issues is valuable, but it does not mention permission requirements, side effects on related resources beyond issues, or what happens to the project's association with repos.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the important scoping caveat about issues follows immediately without redundancy.

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 simple delete operation, the description captures the core destructive behavior and the non-deletion of issues. However, the absence of annotations, no output schema, and lack of usage guidance leave gaps around expected response, side effects, and when to prefer close_project instead.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. The parameter names owner, repo, and project_id are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description does not clarify ownership scope, required formats, or how project_id relates to a specific repo.

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 states a precise verb and resource ('Permanently delete a project') and adds a critical boundary ('This does not delete its issues'). This clearly distinguishes deletion from sibling operations like update_project, close_project, and reopen_project.

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 the tool is for destructively removing a project while preserving its issues, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over close_project or mention any prerequisites. Usage context is only implied, not fully delineated.

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