rm_delete_project

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

The description adds a key behavioral requirement beyond the annotations: 'requires confirm=True'. While destructiveHint already signals the destructive nature, the description clarifies that a confirmation flag must be passed. This is valuable operational context for the agent.

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 concise sentence: 'Delete a project (Destructive: requires confirm=True).' It front-loads the action and packs the most important constraint into a short parenthetical. There is no wasted text.

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 operation with two parameters, an output schema, and annotations already indicating destructiveness, this description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is the absence of guidance about when deleting a project is appropriate or what happens if confirm is false, but the core invocation requirements are covered.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning to the confirm parameter by stating it must be true, which is not obvious from the schema default of false. However, it does not add any semantic detail about project_id beyond its name and schema type.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a project'. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling delete tools for other resources (e.g., rm_delete_project_phase, rm_delete_client). No ambiguity exists about what this tool does.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you intend to delete a project rather than one of the other deletable resources. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention alternatives, or explain any consequences beyond the destructive nature.

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