delete_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated tasks/subtasks, or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation or error). This is inadequate 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?

The description is extremely concise at just four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like permission requirements, irreversibility, side effects on related data, or what to expect upon success/failure. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'projectId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unremarkable coverage.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling deletion tools like delete_comment, delete_relation, delete_task, or delete_task_attachment, which all follow the same 'Delete X by ID' pattern.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., project must exist, user must have permissions), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion, impact on related tasks), or when to choose other tools like update_project or move_project instead.

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