ds_delete_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the cascading nature of the deletion and explicitly warns that it is irreversible, which are critical behavioral traits for a destructive tool. This goes beyond minimal requirements and alerts the agent to the consequences.

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 two concise sentences with no extraneous content. It front-loads the core function (delete entire project) and then adds essential context about cascading and irreversibility, earning its place.

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 aspects of the operation: what it deletes, that it cascades, and that it is irreversible. It does not mention potential prerequisites, permissions, or return values, but given the single parameter and lack of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 has a single parameter, project_name, which is self-explanatory and requires no additional clarification. The description does not explicitly reference the parameter but its meaning is directly implied by the tool's purpose. The schema coverage is 0%, but the simplicity of the parameter reduces the need for compensation.

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 deletes an entire project, specifically naming the cascading effect on workflows, schedules, and instances. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ds_delete_workflow or ds_delete_schedule, which target individual component types.

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 the context for use: it is for deleting a project with all its dependent resources, and warns that the action is irreversible. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools for deleting only specific components (e.g., ds_delete_workflow).

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