Delete project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the destructive cascading effect ('delete all environments and resources'), which is the most critical behavioral trait. It could also mention permission requirements or confirm irreversibility, but the disclosed information goes beyond the bare minimum.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, then a clear consequence. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how the target is identified, and the major side effect. No output schema is present, but that is not a significant gap for a delete operation. It could mention post-conditions or authorization, but the level of detail is adequate.

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 provides only a parameter name and type (uuid: string) with no description. The description adds minimal meaning by specifying 'by UUID', clarifying that the parameter is the project's unique identifier. This helps but does not elaborate on format or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Delete a project by UUID', specifying both the action and the target resource. It also clarifies the scope ('This will delete all environments and resources in the project'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like deleteEnv or deleteApplication that target narrower scopes.

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 when to use the tool: when you want to delete an entire project, with the cascading consequence. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., deleteEnv, deleteApplication) or provide exclusions, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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