deleteProject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a project' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify authentication needs (implied by api_key param), rate limits, error conditions, or what happens upon success (e.g., confirmation message). For a destructive tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with zero wasted words—'Delete a project' is a clear, front-loaded statement. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 complexity (destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like irreversibility, authentication requirements, or response format, leaving gaps that could hinder correct agent usage in a context with siblings like 'updateProject'.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (api_key for authentication, project_id for identification). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract value.

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 'Delete a project' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (project), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'project' means in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'updateProject' or 'getProjectDetails' beyond the obvious action difference. It's adequate but minimal.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or when to choose deletion over other operations like updating. With siblings like 'updateProject' and 'deleteProject' available, this gap is significant.

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