trash_project

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, so the description does not need to repeat that signal. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by disclosing that the action is recoverable from the Overleaf dashboard, which softens the destructive implication. It does not detail collaborator impact, but that is not essential given the annotation coverage.

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 filler; the core action is front-loaded. The recoverability clause earns its place by adding decision-relevant behavioral information.

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 one-parameter destructive action with a full input schema and annotations, this captures the essential behavior and the recovery path. The main omission is explicit guidance on prerequisites or when not to use this tool relative to siblings, but the output schema and annotations cover most remaining context.

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 the parameter description already defines the accepted identifier format: 24-char hex or exact name. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic 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?

States a specific verb ('move to trash') and a specific resource ('Overleaf project'), so an agent immediately knows the action and target. The recoverability note adds useful semantic distinction from a permanent delete. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like list_projects, create_project, or duplicate_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?

The description implies this is the tool for removing/unwanted projects, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or mention prerequisites such as ownership or edit rights. No exclusions are given, so the agent must infer the intended usage context from the tool name and action.

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