OpenPanel: Delete project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not the sole source of safety info. It still adds value beyond them: it specifies the blast radius ('Permanently deletes all project data', not just the project record) and an auth requirement ('root' mode client) that appears nowhere in the annotations or schema.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the destructive warning is placed early, which is the right ordering. The unexplained '[UNIFIED]' prefix is the only stray token that does not obviously earn its place.

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?

Annotations cover the destructive/idempotency profile and there is no output schema to explain, so the remaining gap is moderate. Still, for a two-required-parameter destructive tool, the definition never clarifies what 'site' means or what the caller must supply to scope the deletion, which is an important omission.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the description carries full burden — and it explains neither. 'project_id' is only obliquely implied by the word 'project', and 'site' (likely tenant/instance scoping) is never addressed at all, leaving an agent guessing what to pass.

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 and resource ('Delete a project via Manage API'), which is unambiguous against siblings such as openpanel_create_project or openpanel_get_project. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or routing condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a real precondition ('Requires \'root\' mode client'), which is useful context an agent needs before calling. However, it never states when deletion is appropriate versus alternatives like openpanel_update_project, nor any confirmation/irreversibility workflow, so usage is only implied by the verb.

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