design_delete

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

The word 'Delete' implies a destructive action, but the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as irreversibility, permissions needed, side effects, or confirmation steps. With no annotations provided, the description fails to add transparency beyond the action itself.

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 short sentence, making it concise. However, it is under-specified given the lack of details in other dimensions; brevity here comes at the cost of completeness.

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 deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect on the project, any prerequisites, or what happens after deletion. Critical context 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%, and the description does not explain the 'projectId' parameter beyond its name and type. There is no indication of what values are valid or how to obtain the ID. The description adds no meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and resource 'Claude Design project', which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that perform other actions like create, edit, get, etc.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Among 9 siblings, there is no context on prerequisites, when deletion is appropriate, or when other tools like design_edit or design_status might be relevant.

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