delete_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a project' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it fails to disclose critical traits: whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, if it affects related data, error conditions, or confirmation steps. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a severe gap that could lead to unsafe usage.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Delete a project', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While under-specified, it earns a high score for conciseness as every word directly states the tool's action without fluff or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation with no annotations, 1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, usage context, or output expectations. For a delete operation in a server with multiple project tools, more detail is needed to ensure safe and correct invocation, making this inadequate despite the simple parameter schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'project_id' fully documented in the schema (ID of the project to delete, integer, minimum 1). The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter usage, format, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context like where to find project IDs.

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 'Delete a project' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'update_project' or 'get_project' beyond the obvious verb difference, nor does it clarify what 'project' means in this context (e.g., software project, business project). While the verb 'delete' is clear, the description lacks detail about scope or resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., project must exist, user must have permissions), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if dependencies exist), or sibling tools like 'update_project' or 'list_projects' for alternatives. This leaves the agent with no context for decision-making in a server with multiple project-related tools.

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