Delete Project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the deletion is permanent, irreversible, and cascades to issues, sprints, and tags. This is significant behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence fronts the verb and resource, and the second emphasizes irreversibility.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description is largely complete, covering permanence and cascading effects. It does not mention return value, but an output schema exists. Minor gaps like permissions or what happens to comments are not stated, but the cascade implies them.

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 fully documents the single `projectId` parameter with a clear description ('Project ID to delete'). The description adds no further parameter-specific detail, so it relies on the schema's 100% coverage.

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 'Permanently delete a project and all its issues, sprints, and tags,' providing a specific verb (delete) and resource (project) with cascading scope. This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools for issues, sprints, tags, and comments.

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 the tool is for whole-project deletion, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over individual deletion tools like deleteIssue or deleteSprint. No alternatives are named, leaving the usage context to be inferred from the scope of deletion.

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