project_delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds context about safety checks and exact-ID confirmation, which are not in annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key safety feature. Every word is necessary; no waste.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose and safety, but omits important context: only archived projects can be processed, and no guidance on when to use preview vs purge. Output schema exists, so return values are covered externally.

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 alludes to 'exact-ID confirmation' (confirmProjectId) and 'preview or permanently purge' (purge), but does not mention backupDestination. With 0% schema coverage, partial explanation of the 4 parameters leaves gaps.

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 verb (preview/purge) and resource (archived project). It specifies the exact-ID confirmation requirement, distinguishing it from siblings like project_archive or project_restore, though it could explicitly differentiate usage for archived vs non-archived projects.

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 usage for deleting archived projects with safety checks, but does not give explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The distinction between preview and purge is implied but not explained.

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