iaas_delete_project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only the raw REST endpoint and nothing about consequences, permissions, or cascade behavior toward resources inside the project, which is exactly the extra context a destructive tool needs.

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?

It is short, but two of three lines are pure repetition of the tool name, so the text is under-informative rather than efficient. The only unique content, the DELETE path, is buried at the end.

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, irreversible project deletion with no output schema, the description omits what actually matters: whether dependent deployments/resources are removed, whether deletion fails on a non-empty project, and whether the call is async or returns a request tracker. The REST endpoint alone does not make it callable with confidence.

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 coverage is 100%, so both the required 'id' and the optional 'apiVersion' are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'with a given id' is redundant with that, and it adds no meaning about format or versioning behavior. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Delete project') and adds the path-identified target, so the basic action is unambiguous. However, the three lines restate the same fact three times and give no differentiation from the similarly named sibling project_delete_project, which is a real source of confusion in this toolset.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites (e.g. project must be empty, required role), and no reference to an alternative such as project_delete_project. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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