project_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most consequential behaviors for a delete tool: it cascades to associated schemes and it is irreversible. It stops short of stating permission requirements, whether a confirmation step exists, or what happens when the ID does not exist.

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?

Two short sentences, the destructive effect and cascade are front-loaded, and nothing is wasted. Optimal size for a single-parameter deletion tool.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the risky parts (cascade, irreversibility) adequately. Only error/nonexistent-ID behavior and permission expectations are left unstated, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the single parameter's fallback to the MCP_PROJECT_ID env var is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier, so the 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?

States a specific verb (delete) plus resource (project) and adds the cascade scope ('all its associated schemes'), so it is clearly distinguished from project_update, project_get, and scheme_delete. No explicit sibling naming, but the operation is unmistakable.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., project_update, payment_account_remove), nor any prerequisite or confirmation guidance. The only usage-shaped signal is the warning that the action is irreversible, which is a caution rather than routing guidance.

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