delete_project

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

The term 'permanently' hints at irreversibility, but no annotations exist. Missing details about side effects (e.g., deletion of attachments), required permissions, or whether the action can be undone. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

While concise (one sentence), it is under-specific. Useful information is missing, so conciseness trades off against completeness. Not ideal but no wasted words.

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 delete with one param and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, given the potential complexity of projects (dependencies, permissions), more detail would be needed for safe 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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'projectId'. Description adds no meaning beyond what the tool name implies. For a required string parameter, the description should clarify format or how to obtain the ID.

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 'Delete a project permanently' clearly states the verb (delete), resource (project), and irreversibility (permanently). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rename_project, duplicate_project, and create_design_project.

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 guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., use archive instead), no prerequisites, and no warnings about consequences like losing associated files. The description provides no contextual usage direction.

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