projects_delete

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses the destructive and irreversible nature, what gets destroyed (backend instance, database, data), prerequisites (active billing account), and return value (project name and id).

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the critical action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers behavior, prerequisites, and return value. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or what happens if prerequisites are not met.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context: explains that 'id' can be UUID, name, or unique prefix, and advises to use specific IDs and where to find them. For 'accountId', it clarifies defaulting behavior.

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 tool's purpose: to permanently delete a project and its backend instance, database, and stored data. It differentiates itself from sibling tools (projects_create, projects_list, projects_use) by explicitly being the destructive deletion action.

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 clear usage guidance: confirm with the user first, prefer specific IDs over prefixes, and require an active billing account. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives for non-destructive actions.

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