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. It discloses the license requirement and input format constraint ('compact, single-line JSON'), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on destructive effects (e.g., irreversible deletion), authentication needs, error handling, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important notes in a structured way. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second specifies prerequisites, and the third provides input formatting guidance, with no wasted words.

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 operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers prerequisites and input format but misses key details like parameter explanations, deletion consequences, or expected response format, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with two required parameters (clientId, projectId) undocumented. The description does not add any meaning about these parameters, such as what they represent or how to obtain them, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a project by ID'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'delete-workflow' or 'delete-user' by specifying the project 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 explicit context for when to use this tool by stating 'Requires n8n Enterprise license with project management features enabled,' which serves as a prerequisite. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives like 'update-project' or 'list-projects' for related actions.

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