delete_project

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no context beyond that. It does not disclose that deletion is likely permanent, whether cascading deletion occurs, or any consequences. Since the description carries the burden for any added behavioral context, and it provides none, this is a 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 a single concise sentence of five words, front-loaded with the key verb and object. There is no fluff or repetition, making it highly efficient for the information it conveys.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is notably sparse. It omits critical information such as permanence, cascading effects on dependent entities, error behavior when the project does not exist, and any special prerequisites or permissions. The simple schema and annotations do not compensate for this lack of contextual guidance.

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 has one required string parameter project_id with no description (0% coverage). The description says 'by ID,' which marginally reinforces that project_id is an identifier, but it adds no details about ID format, where to obtain it, or constraints. The parameter name already implies this, so the description adds minimal value.

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 'Delete a project by ID' clearly states the action (delete), the resource (project), and the identification method (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_work_item, delete_state) by explicitly naming the project resource.

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 vs alternatives, such as update_project or retrieve_project. It does not mention prerequisites, permanence, or any situations where a different tool should be used.

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