rm_delete_project_phase

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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds meaningful behavioral detail by requiring confirm=True before deletion, which is not obvious from the schema's default value of false.

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 that leads with the action and immediately flags the destructive requirement. The word 'Destructive' is somewhat redundant with the annotations, but the confirm=True requirement earns its place.

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 straightforward deletion tool, the description covers the core destructive behavior and the confirmation requirement. However, it leaves parameter semantics and usage guidance largely to inference, which is a notable gap even though an output schema exists.

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 should compensate by explaining the parameters. It only clarifies the confirm parameter; project_id and phase_id are left to their names and schema types, with no explanation of their relationship or expected format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('project phase'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_create_project_phase and rm_update_project_phase by explicitly indicating the destructive action.

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 action is straightforwardly named and described, so an agent can infer when to use it: when a project phase needs to be removed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives, prerequisites, or cases where deletion should be avoided, leaving usage context mostly implied.

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