typst_delete_project

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the single most important trait: the deletion is permanent/irreversible. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, what happens to files contained in the project, or behavior when the ID does not exist.

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 short sentence with the destructive nature front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant or misplaced.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential action and irreversibility. It is only slightly thin on prerequisites (auth) and side effects on project contents, which an agent calling a delete tool would want.

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% and the single projectId parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's "by ID" merely echoes the schema and adds no format or validation detail beyond it.

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 ("Permanently delete a project") with a scoping hint ("by ID"), which makes it distinguishable from typst_delete_file and typst_get_project without opening the schema. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, so it falls 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus typst_get_project or typst_delete_file, and no stated prerequisites. The word "Permanently" hints at caution but gives no conditional or alternative-routing instruction.

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