Jobs-tools-knowledgeBase-deleteProject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It directly discloses the irreversible nature ('DANGER: Irreversible') and the extent of deletion ('entire project and all its pages'). However, it does not detail side effects on related data or permissions beyond the irreversible warning.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It communicates the core action and the critical warning efficiently.

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 delete-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description captures the essential scope and risk. It could mention the outcome on success or any prerequisites, but the current information is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter (projectId) with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action (delete) and the resource (entire project and all its pages), distinguishing it from sibling tools like deletePage by explicitly including all pages. The DANGER warning also signals the destructive scope.

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 implies usage when you want to remove a whole project including its pages, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as deletePage for single-page deletion. No exclusionary guidance is provided, so it relies on the tool's name and scope rather than explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions.

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