fossa_delete_project

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial detail: what is destroyed ('revisions, issues, and scan history'), the required environment variables, and the irreversibility warning. This goes far beyond annotations and fully discloses behavioral consequences.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence provides essential information: purpose, prerequisites, and consequence/caveat. No wasted words or repetition.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, required environment variables, destructive effects, irreversibility, and a specific safety caveat about locator accuracy. With an output schema present, return values need not be described. This is complete for a destructive single-parameter 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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameter. It does so by clarifying that project_locator must be exact and that a locator guessed from a repository name may refer to a different project, advising to confirm with fossa_get_project. This adds valuable meaning beyond the raw 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 states 'Permanently delete one project and everything FOSSA has scanned for it' with a specific verb, resource, and scope (one project). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fossa_delete_projects (plural) and fossa_delete_project_attribution_slug.

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 provides usage context: requires FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true and FOSSA_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true, warns about irreversibility, and advises confirming the exact locator with fossa_get_project. It does not explicitly name alternatives like fossa_delete_projects, but the one-project scope and locator guidance are sufficient for appropriate use.

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