delete_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits: permanence, side effects (e.g., cascading deletion of associated items), authorization needs, or error conditions. For a destructive operation, this is a critical omission.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but not well-structured. It is not front-loaded with critical information like behavioral traits or prerequisites. While it wastes no words, it also fails to earn its place by providing essential context.

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?

Despite low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks completeness. It omits key contextual information such as irreversibility, cascading effects, or required permissions, which are essential for safe usage of a destructive tool.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the work.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish from other delete tools (e.g., delete_board, delete_task) beyond the resource name, which is slightly weaker than 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of deletion scope (e.g., permanent, cascading). The agent has no basis to decide if this is appropriate over other delete operations.

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