delete_project_artifact

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: deletion is immediate and not automatically reversible, returns a confirmation string, and raises a 404 error if path doesn't exist. All critical behavioral aspects are covered.

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 concise with meaningful structure: action statement first, then usage guidelines, then return/error info. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Appropriate length for a simple deletion tool.

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 simplicity (2 required string params, no annotations, with output schema), the description is complete. It covers the action, side effects, usage context, return value, and error condition. No missing elements for effective use.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('Path to delete' and 'Project name'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No further parameter details are needed.

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 explicitly states the tool deletes a single artifact file from artifact storage, with the prefix '[ARTIFACT TOOLS]' and clear verb+resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like move_project_artifact and restore_project_artifact.

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 explicit guidance: suggests checking backup history before deletion via list_artifact_history, warns against using for move/rename by naming move_project_artifact as alternative, and mentions restoring via restore_project_artifact. This clearly indicates when and when not to use.

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