delete_project

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, indicating repeated calls have the same effect. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Delete a project' - it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, confirmation requirements, or side effects. With annotations covering idempotency, the description adds minimal value but doesn't 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 extremely concise at three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 destructive operation with 0% schema description coverage, one parameter, and an output schema (implied but not shown), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens upon deletion, return values, error conditions, or permissions required. The annotations help with idempotency but don't compensate for the lack of behavioral context in the description.

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 0%, with one parameter (projectId) documented only in the schema with basic description. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by 'Delete a project' (needs a project identifier). Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but doesn't, resulting in a baseline score.

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' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (project), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like delete_backtest, delete_file, delete_object, or delete_project_collaborator, which all perform deletion operations on different resources. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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), when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., if project is in use), or explicit alternatives among sibling deletion tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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