Delete a project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does cover the critical traits: irreversibility ("Not recoverable") and cascading deletion of all child resources. It omits permission/auth requirements, what happens on a confirm mismatch, and what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive consequence front-loaded ahead of the confirmation mechanics. Nothing repeats the title or name.

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 three-parameter destructive tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present: scope, irreversibility, and the human-approval gate. Permission requirements and the failure mode for a wrong `confirm` value are the remaining gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's note that `confirm` must be the project's slug duplicates the schema's own wording for that field rather than adding new syntax or format detail.

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 plus the blast radius ("Removes a project and everything under it"), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling delete_context. It never names an alternative sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for invocation — "Ask the human first" — which is exactly the guidance an agent needs before triggering an irreversible tool. It stops short of naming when not to use it or which sibling handles narrower deletion.

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