Projects Delete Project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature itself is redundant. However, the description adds the non-obvious operational requirement that confirm=True must be supplied (the schema only shows a default of false with no explanation), which is genuine behavioral value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the destructive flag and the required precondition are both stated immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. But for a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, the description omits whether deletion cascades to phases, assignments, and time entries, and whether a failed confirm leaves anything changed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the semantics of 'confirm' usefully, but says nothing about 'project_id' despite the schema allowing either an integer or a string via anyOf — an ambiguity an agent could easily get wrong.

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 (Delete) and resource (project), which cleanly distinguishes it from the phase/assignment deletion siblings in the same namespace. It does not, however, explicitly mention any sibling by name or say what gets removed along with the project.

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 supplies one hard precondition (confirm=True), which is real invocation guidance, but gives no when-to-use context, no alternative tooling, and no warnings about consequences of deletion. Adequate but clearly incomplete.

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