delete_geomi_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 first sentence is direct and front-loaded, but the second marketing sentence ('Geomi is the essential toolkit for Aptos developers') adds no operational value and wastes space. A more concise version would omit this, improving structure without losing clarity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context: what happens upon deletion (e.g., confirmation, error handling), return values, or behavioral nuances. The agent is left guessing about outcomes, which is inadequate given the tool's complexity and risk.

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 both parameters ('organization_id' and 'project_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or contextual constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a Project for your Geomi Organization'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_geomi_project' and 'update_geomi_project' by specifying deletion. However, it includes an unnecessary marketing sentence about Geomi being 'the essential toolkit for Aptos developers,' which slightly dilutes focus.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'delete_geomi_api_key' or 'delete_geomi_application.' The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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