projects_delete

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

The description discloses that the deletion is soft and reversible, adding nuance beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It specifies that projects go to trash and remain restorable for a bounded window, which is critical behavioral context an agent needs to know before invoking a destructive operation.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and identification method, then provides outcome. No filler or redundancy; every clause earns 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?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It explains what, how, and the post-deletion state, leaving no essential detail missing.

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 already provides a complete description of the 'project' parameter (covering slug, owner/slug, and ul:// URI) with 100% coverage. The description merely restates this information without adding new meaning or syntax details, 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 the action (soft-delete), the resource (project), and the accepted identifiers (slug, owner/slug, or ul:// URI). It also specifies the outcome (lands in trash, restorable for a bounded window), distinguishing it from read-only and other delete tools.

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 clearly establishes the tool's purpose for deleting projects, and the resource type makes it obvious which sibling it pairs with (e.g., projects_get vs projects_create). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough to infer correct usage.

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