project_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool deletes a project and requires the project not to be open. It does not mention whether the action is reversible, permissions needed, or what happens upon failure (e.g., if the project is open). For a deletion tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value—no filler. It efficiently conveys the core operation and a key constraint.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and a critical precondition. It could mention permanence or error handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 only parameter is 'name', and the schema has 0% description coverage. The description implies that 'name' is the project name ('Delete a project...'), but does not specify the format, whether it must be unique within the folder, or how it relates to the database folder. More detail would help the agent correctly fill the parameter.

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 action ('delete'), resource ('project'), and context ('from the current database folder'). It also includes a precondition ('must not be open'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like project_open or project_close.

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 a clear precondition ('It must not be open') that guides when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., if a project should be kept). Still, the context is clear enough for most scenarios.

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