projects_delete

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

The description explicitly says 'soft-delete,' which implies reversibility, adding context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true). However, it does not elaborate on the exact behavior (e.g., restore capability, cascading effects, response).

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, efficient sentence that conveys all essential information without extraneous 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?

Given the simple tool (one param, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. However, it could include more context about post-action state or confirmation, though the soft-delete label provides some completeness.

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% for the single parameter. The description essentially repeats the schema's parameter description, adding no new information. Baseline score 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 supported identifiers (id, slug, username/slug, ul:// URI). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like projects_create, projects_get, and projects_list.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., permanent deletion). It lacks prerequisites, conditions, or examples of appropriate use cases.

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