delete_project

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, and the description adds critical context: 'This action cannot be undone' and requires confirmation before proceeding. This goes beyond the binary destructive flag, clarifying the irreversibility and the need for explicit consent, which is valuable for an agent.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clearly separated instruction block. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition. The structure is clean and easy to parse.

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 simple, single-parameter delete operation, the description covers the essential action and irreversibility, and the output schema supplies return-value details. It could mention side effects on associated resources, but given the low complexity and strong annotations/schema, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter, including format and example. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies per calibration. The slight mismatch between 'project name' and 'resource name' is a minor redundancy but does not reduce reliability.

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 ('Deletes') and the target resource ('a specific Stitch project'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_project or create_project. The use of 'using its project name' aligns with the required parameter, though the schema more precisely calls it a resource name; this is a minor terminology nuance that does not obscure the purpose.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_project, list_projects), nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios where deletion should be avoided. The confirmation instruction is a procedural call-time guideline, not usage-context guidance, so it does not address this dimension.

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