Supprimer un(e) projet

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

Even though annotations already include destructiveHint=true, the description adds '⚠️ Action irréversible' (irreversible action) and explains that a confirmation may be requested when the MCP client supports elicitation. This provides valuable context about consequences and user interaction that goes beyond the structured annotation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, followed by essential warnings. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the Args section, while redundant, does not bloat the description.

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 tool with one parameter, the description covers the purpose, irreversibility, and confirmation behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description is complete given the tool's low complexity.

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?

The schema already describes the sole parameter 'id' with complete coverage (100%). The description repeats the parameter in an Args block but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'Supprime' (delete) and explicitly identifies the resource as 'projet de BoondManager', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that update, create, or delete other entities.

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 clearly implies usage for deleting a BoondManager project, and the tool name reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for modifying a project, use boond_projects_update'), so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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