delete_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the two most critical traits: that the deletion is total/cascading and irreversible (取り消し不可). It omits permission/auth requirements and whether any confirmation step exists, which are relevant for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single compact sentence with the destructive scope and irreversibility front-loaded in a parenthetical. Zero waste, easy to scan before an irreversible operation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description adequately flags the destructive/cascading nature. It falls slightly short on permissions and confirmation context that an agent would want before an irreversible delete.

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?

There is only one parameter (project_id) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never references it or clarifies its form. The schema supplies only the title, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (完全削除 - completely delete) and resource (プロジェクト - project), and clarifies cascade scope (tickets and Wiki also deleted). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like delete_issue or delete_wiki_page beyond the obvious resource difference.

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 warns of the irreversible cascade effect but gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., archiving, or individual deletes), states no prerequisites or confirmation expectations, and names no sibling tools.

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