delete_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that deletion is cascading, that Vikunja soft-deletes with 30-day retention, that no restore endpoint exists, and that the operation is effectively permanent. This is highly transparent.

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 longer than strictly necessary but each section adds critical warnings: cascading behavior, soft-delete/retention, permanence, confirmation step, and archive alternative. The repetition of 'Checked against' could be trimmed, but overall structure is clear and purposeful.

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?

Given the single-parameter input and no output schema, the description fully covers the operation's effects, risks, and alternative. It provides enough context for an agent to decide correctly and act safely.

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 schema has only one required integer project_id with no description coverage. The description references confirming the id via list_projects and mentions parent_project_id, but does not explicitly define the project_id parameter beyond its obvious role. Some compensation exists, but it is minimal.

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?

Clearly states the tool deletes a project and cascades to sub-projects, tasks, comments, labels, and assignees. It is distinct from sibling tools like update_project and delete_task, and explicitly contrasts with archiving.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use and when not to use: it advises confirming the ID with list_projects first and directs users to update_project with is_archived: true for non-destructive archiving. This leaves no ambiguity about appropriate invocation.

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