Delete project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the exact cascade of destroyed entities, that the action cannot be undone, and the authentication/confirmation requirements. No contradiction with the declared hints.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste. The destructive scope is front-loaded, followed by irreversibility and prerequisites in decreasing order of importance.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope of destruction, reversibility, auth and confirmation, which is everything an agent needs to call it safely.

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%, so both parameters (projectId, confirm) are already documented in the schema, including the const: true constraint. The description reinforces confirm=true but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (delete) and resource (project) and immediately scopes the blast radius to every ticket, comment and attachment link. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_ticket, delete_comment and delete_attachment.

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 strong use-context signal ('most destructive call of the whole API') and states the prerequisites (API key, confirm=true), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or spell out when-not-to-use beyond the irreversibility warning.

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