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 of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the categories of project-scoped data that will be deleted and adds a crucial warning that prospects are NOT deleted, which is a significant side-effect clarification. It doesn't mention reversibility or permissions, but for a delete operation, this coverage is above average.

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?

Despite being a single sentence, the description efficiently packs essential details: the action, the explicit list of affected data, and the exclusion of prospects. The structure front-loads the verb and resource, and the parenthetical list is scannable. No wasted words.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what gets deleted, what doesn't, and the scope of impact. It doesn't address restore capabilities or authorization, but that's acceptable. The nuance about prospects being tenant assets is valuable and covers a likely source of confusion.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a description for projectId ('Project name or ID.'). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable since the schema is complete. This is a baseline 3, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond the structured data.

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 verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource 'project' while listing the exact scope of deletion (project-prospect links, outreach logs, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_prospects and delete_organizations by explicitly scoping the deletion to project-scoped data and highlighting that prospects are tenant assets and NOT deleted, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context on what the tool does and implies when to use it (when deleting a project without affecting tenant prospects). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this instead of X.' The clarification about prospects suggests a boundary but doesn't offer explicit guidance on choosing between this and other delete tools.

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