delete-project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states this is a deletion (destructive) and mentions a license requirement and argument formatting, but it fails to disclose whether the deletion is permanent, any cascading effects on associated data, required permissions, or confirmation steps. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose followed by two notes. Every sentence earns its place with essential information, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, a key prerequisite (license), and an important formatting constraint. While it could mention permanence or return value, it is largely complete for a basic delete operation with good parameter documentation in the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's descriptions of 'clientId' and 'projectId'. It repeats the formatting requirement but doesn't explain the parameters themselves or their relationships.

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 'Delete a project by ID', which is a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('project by ID'). This uniquely identifies the tool's action and differentiates it from siblings like 'update-project' or 'create-project'.

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 explicit usage guidance by noting 'Requires n8n Enterprise license' and a critical formatting requirement: 'Arguments must be provided as compact, single-line JSON without whitespace or newlines.' This gives context for when and how to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use alternatives.

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