Delete a project

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds the key behavioral constraint that deletion only works on archived projects. It doesn't contradict the destructiveHint, and the note about archiving first provides context that annotations don't cover.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and the second sentence adds essential prerequisite context. 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 simple delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the action, the prerequisite, and the destructive nature is already in annotations. The confirm parameter description in the schema adds the detail about removing time entries, so the overall tool definition is reasonably complete.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions for project_id, confirm, and workspace_id. The description itself doesn't add extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Deletes a project' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling project tools like update or create. It also adds the prerequisite that the project must be archived first, which clarifies the intended operation.

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: 'Clockify only allows this once the project is archived, so archive it first.' This tells the user when the tool can be used, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for archiving. The guidance is implicit but actionable.

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