openpanel_delete_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'and all its data,' indicating cascading deletion scope, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: irreversibility, the purpose of the 'confirm' parameter, or whether deletion is immediate/async. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained metadata that provides no behavioral context.

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 actual descriptive content is appropriately concise (single sentence). However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be implementation metadata that wastes space without adding value to the agent's understanding, slightly undermining front-loading efficiency.

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 this is a destructive operation with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It mentions scope ('all its data') but lacks critical details: parameter explanations, confirmation requirements, and return behavior. For a high-stakes deletion tool, this leaves dangerous gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It completely fails to do so: it does not explain what 'site' refers to (domain? ID?), the format of 'project_id', or the purpose of the boolean 'confirm' flag. The agent has no semantic context for any of the three required parameters.

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 action (Delete), the resource (a project), and the scope (and all its data). The verb is specific and distinguishes this from sibling tools like openpanel_update_project, openpanel_create_project, and openpanel_list_projects.

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 versus alternatives, nor does it warn about the irreversible nature of the operation. Given the destructive nature and the presence of a 'confirm' parameter, explicit usage guidelines (e.g., 'only when permanent removal is required') would be appropriate but are absent.

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