delete_project

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'). However, with no annotations, it fails to mention potential cascading effects (e.g., deletion of associated tasks or time entries), permissions required, or return value. It adds some transparency but leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 a concise two-sentence structure with zero superfluous text. Every word earns its place, front-loading the action and immediately noting irreversibility.

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 simple one-parameter mutating tool, the description covers the essential purpose and irreversibility. However, it lacks information about cascading side effects or operational constraints (e.g., whether projects must be empty to delete). Given no annotations and no output schema, this is a clear gap, but the tool's simplicity keeps it at a minimally viable level.

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 the parameter 'id' described as 'The project UUID'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, but given complete schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the target resource ('a project') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling delete_* tools by resource type. It is unambiguous and direct.

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 usage guidance is provided beyond the core action. There is no mention of when to use this over alternatives (e.g., archiving or updating a project), nor any prerequisites or conditions for deletion. The description implies context but gives no explicit or implicit guidance for tool selection.

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