delete_project

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the description's job is to add nuance. It does: it discloses a hard server-side refusal condition (attached declarations) and the confirm gate that governs whether anything is deleted. It doesn't discuss reversibility or what the output reports, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding; the destructive action and its two gates are front-loaded. The second clause ("which is the safety net; `confirm: true` is this server's") trails off grammatically, costing a point for structure but not for length.

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 destructive, annotated mutation with a 100%-covered schema and an output schema present, the description supplies the two facts an agent most needs before invoking it: the refusal condition and the confirm requirement. Return-value detail is correctly delegated to the output schema, so nothing essential 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% and both parameters are already documented in the schema (including "Must be `true`. Without it nothing is deleted."). The description restates the confirm requirement with a rationale framing but adds no new syntax, accepted identifier forms, or edge cases beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Delete a project"), which is unambiguous and cleanly distinguishable from siblings like delete_task, delete_customer, or update_project. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the verb+resource pair is concrete enough that no differentiation is needed.

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 gives the operative precondition: deletion is refused while declarations are attached, and `confirm: true` is required. That is real usage context about when the call will and won't succeed. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., detaching declarations first, or update_project), so it isn't a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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