Delete project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further: it specifies that deletion is permanent, that the config is removed from the app's persisted list, and that no confirmation is added by MCP. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with 'DESTRUCTIVE,' and every sentence contributes a distinct, useful fact (irreversibility, persistence removal, no confirmation). No waste.

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 mutation with an output schema absent and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies the critical missing context: irreversibility, persistence effect, and absence of confirmation. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and cautiously.

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 only parameter's description ('Project configId from project_list') is already in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the id parameter, 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 and resource ('permanently deletes the project') and even names the underlying mechanism ('deleteFirmware'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like project_create, project_rename, and project_save, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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?

Provides strong context for when this tool applies: permanent, irreversible deletion with no confirmation added by MCP. It does not name alternatives or explicitly exclude scenarios, but the destructive/irreversible framing gives the agent clear usage context.

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