project_delete

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It labels the tool as 'destructive' but does not explain the consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion, cascading effects) or any authorization needs. The 'REST plane' mention is vague and insufficient for an AI agent to assess side effects.

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 very short (two sentences), but it sacrifices essential information. The first sentence about mutating/destructive is useful, but the lack of parameter details makes it too sparse for effective use.

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 a destructive tool with 3 parameters and no schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, confirmation mechanics, and return value (though output schema exists). This is inadequate for safe invocation.

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 description does not describe any of the three parameters despite 0% schema description coverage. The agent must infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for understanding the 'confirm' and 'confirm_name' fields' purpose and interaction.

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 'Delete a project,' specifying the verb and resource. It also adds 'Mutating + destructive, REST plane' to clarify the nature of the operation, which helps differentiate it from read-only sibling tools like project_get or project_list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as project_export for backup or project_scan for status. It does not mention prerequisites like confirmation requirements or the need to ensure the project is not in use, which is critical for a destructive action.

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