delete_cospend_project

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

Even though destructiveHint already marks the tool as destructive, the description adds significant value: it reveals that the endpoint ignores deletionDisabled, that deletion is irrevocable, that it cascades to members/bills/shares, and that admin rights are required. This goes well 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?

The description is compact and well-organized: purpose, access requirement, important caveat, args, and returns. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the critical behavioral warning is front-loaded.

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 simplicity, existing annotations, and output schema, the description covers all necessary operational details: what is deleted, auth required, the deletionDisabled caveat, parameter definition, and return shape. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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, but it only restates 'String project id' which mirrors the schema title. It provides no guidance on where the id comes from (e.g., list_cospend_projects) or any format expectations, making this a weak compensation for the missing schema description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Delete a Cospend project', and clearly scopes the action to all members, bills, and shares. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_cospend_bill and delete_cospend_member.

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 gives a concrete precondition ('Requires ADMIN access') and a behavioral caveat that differentiates this endpoint from delete_cospend_bill regarding the deletionDisabled flag. It does not explicitly say 'use this when you want to remove an entire project,' but that is strongly implied by the stated scope.

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