delete_project

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

As a destructive tool with no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing effects. It does not specify whether deletion is permanent, cascading, or reversible, nor does it mention any side effects.

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?

Although short, the description is under-specified. Conciseness should not sacrifice necessary information; here, three words fail to convey essential details.

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 tool with two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It lacks return value description, parameter explanations, and behavioral context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter semantics. It mentions no parameters; the agent must infer that project_id is required and workspace_id is optional. No details on format or usage are provided.

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 'Delete a project' is a near-tautology with the tool name, adding no additional context. While it clearly indicates the action and resource, it fails to differentiate from sibling delete tools like delete_client or delete_tag beyond the name itself.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., archive_project or update_project). No prerequisites, permissions, or contextual hints are given.

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