teamleader_projects_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly notes 'SIDE EFFECT: verwijdert het project onomkeerbaar' (irreversible deletion), which is a critical behavioral fact. However, it does not mention other potential side effects like cascading deletes or permission requirements, though the irreversibility note is substantive.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the key side effect. Every word is informative, and there is zero waste. It is a model of concise, readable tool documentation.

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 delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and irreversibility. However, it does not specify what the return value looks like (e.g., success message, deleted object), nor does it warn about any prerequisites or consequences beyond deletion. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but has clear gaps around post-condition behavior and distinction from close/reopen.

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 defines one parameter 'id' as a string, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the parameter at all. The description therefore adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides; the agent must infer that 'id' is the project identifier from the tool name and context.

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 'Verwijder een nextgen-project' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (nextgen-project), distinguishing it from sibling tools like projects_update, projects_close, and projects_duplicate. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 such as projects_close (which is non-destructive) or projects_reopen. While the SIDE EFFECT note warns of irreversibility, it does not explicitly frame this as a last-resort action or suggest when deletion is appropriate versus other operations.

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