destroy_project

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosure. It states the core destructive behavior and the cascade to all services, but does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or side effects on linked resources like domains, mounts, or databases.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers what action is taken and the affected scope. However, with no annotations or output schema, it does not state whether deletion is reversible, what response to expect, or whether resources beyond services are affected.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter-level detail. An agent only knows projectName is a string; it is not told whether it needs an exact name from list_projects or any format/validation rules.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'project', and clarifies scope with 'all its services'. This differentiates it from destroy_app and destroy_database, whose scope is narrower.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided. The intended use (deleting a project) is implied by the verb and resource, but the description does not state when to prefer destroy_app or other cleanup tools.

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