whodb_platform_project_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so 'this is destructive' adds little. The real added value is the confirmation-token workflow and the warning about when to invoke whodb_platform_confirm, which goes beyond the structured safety hints and explains the multi-step deletion protocol.

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?

Four compact sentences with the destructive warning and the confirm-flow caveat front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though the short paragraph fragments read slightly telegraphically rather than as one coherent flow.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to add the non-obvious two-phase confirmation protocol, which it does. Coverage of targeting defaults and disambiguation is adequate for a correctly-invocable 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%, so all three parameters (project, org, workspace) are already documented with equivalent descriptions. The description restates the id/slug/name flexibility and workspace non-default targeting but adds only the 'when needed for disambiguation' nuance, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema.

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 (a hosted WhoDB project), which cleanly separates it from siblings like whodb_platform_project_create, whodb_platform_project_rename, and the generic whodb_platform_delete. An agent can identify scope without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use: pass project as id/slug/name, add org for disambiguation, and follow the two-phase confirm flow. It explicitly names whodb_platform_confirm and instructs not to call it until the user approves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the generic whodb_platform_delete sibling.

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