删除项目

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

The destructiveHint annotation already declares the write/destroy nature, and the description adds real value on top: it enumerates the cascade (phases/deliverables are deleted) and explicitly reassures that purchase/expense/todo records survive with only their association removed. It doesn't address irreversibility, confirmation, or failure behavior if a cascade is blocked.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the core action, then the cascade, then the non-cascade caveat. Every clause carries distinct information with no filler.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema delete tool, the two things an agent most needs to know—what else gets deleted and what merely gets unlinked—are both answered. The destructiveHint annotation covers the safety profile, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter, 'id', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never says what it identifies or what format it takes. The parameter's meaning is inferable from the tool name, so this is a minor rather than critical gap, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('删除项目') plus the cascade scope (phases/deliverables) and the non-cascade treatment of linked purchase/expense/todo records. This clearly separates it from project.update or project.list without needing to name them. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 gives the decision-relevant context an agent needs before calling: what will be destroyed versus merely unlinked. There is no explicit 'use X instead' routing or listed preconditions (e.g. permissions, whether the project must be empty), so it stops short of a 5.

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