Delete project

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context by warning that deletion is irreversible on most instances. It also notes that deletion may be scheduled, which is a behavioral nuance not captured by annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that delivers the core meaning and a key warning. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 tool's simplicity, two parameters, and existing annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: deletion action, scheduling nuance, and irreversibility. It lacks details about response behavior or permission requirements, but these are not critical given the provided structured data.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents both parameters clearly: 'confirm' requires true and 'project_id' accepts an ID or URL-encoded path with a fallback. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 the action ('Deletes') and the resource ('a project'), and mentions the nuance of scheduling deletion. It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that create or update 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 implies usage for deleting a project but provides no explicit context about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It doesn't name any alternative tool for comparison, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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