delete_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses the destructive nature, irreversibility, and the confirmation requirement. It clearly states that the project and all its services and data will be removed.

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: a single sentence that includes a warning emoji, the action, and the requirement. Every word is necessary and front-loaded.

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 simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It covers the irreversible action and confirmation requirement. However, it does not explain what happens upon success or failure, which might be inferred but is not explicit.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the confirmation parameter but adds no new information beyond the schema descriptions. It provides emphasis on the destructive nature but does not enhance understanding of the parameters themselves.

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: permanently delete a project and all its services and data. It uses strong language ('irreversible') and includes the confirmation requirement. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on specific resources like services or databases.

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 (when you want to permanently remove a project) and includes a warning about irreversibility and the required confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use or mention alternative tools (e.g., destroy_service for deleting a single service).

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