kaiten_delete_project

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Delete' signals destructiveness, but the description does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related entities (boards, cards, etc.), what permissions are required, or what happens to existing project data. This is a significant transparency gap for a destructive operation.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. 'Delete a Kaiten project.' is front-loaded and contains exactly the information needed to state the primary purpose, not more.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is functionally minimal but not complete enough for a destructive action with no annotations and no output schema. Missing context includes reversibility, cascading effects, required permissions, and any response or confirmation behavior. Compare with mutation tools that received similar scores for lacking these details.

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 provides complete documentation for the single parameter: 'Project ID (UUID)' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context, but per the rubric, the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the full semantic load.

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 specific verb + resource: 'Delete a Kaiten project.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like kaiten_delete_board or kaiten_delete_workflow, since the resource is named explicitly and no other tool in the list deletes a 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where a different project-related operation (e.g., kaiten_archive_card, kaiten_delete_space) would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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