cor_delete_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'delete' which implies destruction, but fails to mention cascade effects, approval requirements, or whether deletion is permanent or reversible. This lack of detail increases risk for the agent.

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?

Extremely concise with the core action in the first sentence. No superfluous words or redundant information. Efficiently front-loaded for quick scanning.

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?

While the output schema exists, the description omits important context for a delete operation: what the response looks like, error handling, or confirmation messages. The agent lacks guidance to verify successful execution.

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 description adds 'project_id: The project ID' which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's title. However, with 0% schema coverage, more detail (e.g., where to find the ID, format constraints) would be beneficial.

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?

Description clearly states 'Delete a project' with a direct verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like cor_create_project and cor_update_project, which handle creation and modification, making the tool's specific action unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Missing information on prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), irreversible nature, or scenarios where cor_update_project might be preferred.

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