Удаление проекта

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

Annotation Contradiction: The description states 'Удаляет проект' (deletes a project), which is a destructive operation, but the annotations declare destructiveHint: false. This is a direct contradiction. The description also mentions resources remain, but the core destructive nature conflicts with the annotation.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by important caveats. Every sentence adds value: the deletion action, the default project restriction, and the resource transfer instruction.

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 1-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it deletes, a key restriction, and a prerequisite action. It adequately prepares an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides a complete description for the only parameter (project_id), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter context, so the baseline of 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 'Удаляет проект' (Deletes a project), identifying the specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting the default project restriction and mentioning transfer_project_resource as an alternative for resource handling.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (delete a project), when not to (default project cannot be deleted), and what to do instead (transfer resources via transfer_project_resource). This provides clear usage guidance and distinguishes from related operations.

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