delete_project_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses that deletion is reversible (moved to recycle bin, restorable), names the failure mode (404 when the path is absent from artifact storage), and describes the response. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or whether repeat deletion is idempotent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then cleanly separated into usage warning, Returns, and Raises. Slightly padded by the '[ARTIFACT TOOLS]' tag and a Returns line that partly duplicates the existing output schema.

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 two-parameter soft-delete tool, the description covers action, reversibility, sibling routing, error condition, and response shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it clarifies that 'path' targets a single artifact file (not a directory or project) and that a nonexistent path yields a 404 rather than silent success.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a single artifact file by moving it to the recycle bin') and immediately distinguishes itself from the rename/move sibling. An agent can identify the exact operation and scope without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names when NOT to use it ('Do NOT use to move or rename a file — call move_project_artifact instead') and points to restore_project_artifact for recovery, giving both the exclusion and the alternative route.

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