delete_project

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description adds meaningful context: 'This is destructive and cannot be undone' signals irreversibility, and 'including all its services' discloses a cascading blast radius. These traits are not expressed in the annotations, and there is no contradiction with the idempotentHint=true annotation.

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 core content is two front-loaded sentences that each earn their place: the purpose/scope line and the destructive warning. The trailing Args block is slightly redundant with the input schema, adding minor noise but not bloating the description.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema already present, the description adequately covers purpose, cascade scope, and irreversibility. Minor gaps remain: it doesn't point to how to obtain the project_id or state the full blast radius beyond services (e.g., networks, domains, deployments attached to the project).

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was responsible for compensating on the sole parameter, but it merely restates the schema's own title: 'project_id: Project ID'. It adds no format details, lookup guidance (e.g., via list_projects), or example values.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a project from EasyPanel'), and clarifies the cascading scope ('including all its services'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_service and delete_network, which target different resource types.

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 phrase 'including all its services' implies this is the full-project removal tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., 'use delete_service if only one service should be removed'). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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