delete_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description simply states the deletion action without disclosing whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related resources (e.g., entries, tags, relationships), whether confirmation is required, or access/auth requirements. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 short single phrase with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. Conciseness at this minimal level doesn't earn a higher score because it sacrifices crucial information about the tool's behavior.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description should disclose permanence, effect on related data, and success/failure behavior. The one-line Japanese description fails to provide this essential context, making it inadequate for an agent to safely invoke a delete operation.

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 description coverage is 100% - the only parameter (id) is documented in the schema as "エントリID (UUID)". The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No additional meaning or context about the id parameter is given in the description.

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 "プロジェクトを削除" (Delete a project) conveys a clear verb+resource purpose. However, it's a minimal Japanese phrase that doesn't add differentiation beyond what the tool name already implies, and with many sibling delete_* tools it doesn't clarify what distinguishes deleting a project from deleting other resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must exist), cascading effects on related entries, or when to prefer delete_custom_entry or other deletion tools. The description gives no usage context whatsoever.

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