fenbs_delete_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden well: it discloses that tasks are not deleted, that orphaned tasks return on restore, that moveTo is permanent, and that task-change permission is required. It omits confirmation/error behavior and whether the project name must exist, minor for a delete.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then behavioral detail in three compact sentences; the parenthetical sibling references add routing value rather than noise. Slightly dense run-on phrasing around the not-deleted/restored clause costs a point.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers behavior, side effects, prerequisites and permission needs. Missing only confirmation guidance and any failure/error semantics.

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% (baseline 3), and the description exceeds that by explaining the semantic consequence of moveTo ("they move to that project for good") versus omission, which the terse schema text does not convey.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Delete a project") and immediately scopes the blast radius by naming the counterpart sibling fenbs_restore_project. An agent can distinguish this from fenbs_delete_item or fenbs_restore_project without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite (call fenbs_list_projects first to count tasks) and an explicit decision rule for the two modes: omit moveTo for a restorable soft delete, supply moveTo to permanently relocate tasks. It never states when NOT to delete or names a non-destructive alternative, so it stops short of 5.

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