keyso_delete_ai_tracker_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (DELETE) and path, which imply destruction, but it does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to associated data (prompts, competitors), or what authentication is required. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity 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?

Three lines: a clear Russian label, method+path, and an example request. All information is relevant and front-loaded; no fluff or redundant explanation.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits essential context: irreversibility, cascade effects, permission requirements, or what response to expect. The typical agent needs more than a path to safely invoke a delete operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's example URL with <id> adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, though it does reinforce that id is a path parameter. It does not explicitly explain that id is the AI tracker project ID, but the title provides that context.

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 (delete) and resource (AI tracker project) in Russian ('удаление проекта' = delete project) plus the HTTP method and path. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like keyso_delete_ai_tracker_id_prompts or keyso_delete_ai_tracker_id_competitors, which delete sub-resources rather than the project itself.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions; an agent must infer from the name and sibling list that this handles project-level deletion only.

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