project_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the destructive nature ('Delete... and all its resources'), which is critical for a mutation tool. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like irreversible deletion, confirmation requirements, or error handling, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (API note, purpose, guidelines, prerequisites, alternatives) using symbols and bullet points. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and information is front-loaded with the core action first.

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 destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage boundaries, and related tools. However, it lacks details on what 'all its resources' entails concretely (e.g., services, databases, volumes) and doesn't describe the return value or error cases, which are important for such a high-stakes operation.

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 one parameter (projectId) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is strong. It implies the parameter identifies the target project but doesn't elaborate further.

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 specific action ('Delete a Railway project and all its resources') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like service_delete. It explicitly mentions the scope ('all its resources'), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 guidance with 'Best for' (removing unused projects, cleaning up test projects) and 'Not for' (temporary deactivation, service-level cleanup), plus named alternatives (service_delete) and prerequisites (project_list, project_info). This gives comprehensive when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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