todoist_delete_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., deleting associated tasks), or includes confirmation prompts. The return statement mentions a confirmation message but lacks detail on format or error handling.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by dedicated Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently organized for quick parsing.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter but lacks critical behavioral context like irreversibility or permissions. For a delete operation, more safety and consequence details would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description effectively compensates by explaining 'project_id' as 'The ID of the project to delete.' This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying the parameter's role and format expectation. However, it doesn't specify ID format (e.g., numeric vs. string) or validation rules.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a project by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like todoist_get_project (read) and todoist_update_project (modify). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project ID), exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like todoist_delete_task. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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