delete_project

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

The description discloses the critical behavioral trait of permanent deletion ('cannot be undone'), which is essential. Without annotations, it carries the full burden; however, it does not cover authorization needs or side effects on related resources, so not a 5.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the action and irreversibility. 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 simple deletion tool with no output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description covers the key effect (permanence). However, it omits return value or post-deletion state, which would be helpful, but overall 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters sufficiently. The description adds no extra parameter-level context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 permanently deletes a project, using specific verb 'delete' and resource 'project', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_project or pause_project by emphasizing irreversibility.

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 permanent deletion is intended) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like pausing or deactivating. No mention of prerequisites or context compared to similar tools.

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