asana_delete_project

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the confirmation requirement and the no-op behavior when confirm is false, which is beyond what annotations convey. It does not contradict annotations.

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 exceptionally concise, using a single imperative sentence plus a short note. It front-loads the destructive warning and delivers all critical information without any filler or redundant phrasing.

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 operation, the description covers the essential gate and no-op fallback, and the annotations provide the safety profile. It does not mention return values or side effects beyond deletion, but for a simple project delete with confirm-gating, this is nearly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It briefly explains the confirm parameter via the gate condition, but does not describe project_gid at all. Since project_gid is self-explanatory from the tool name, the partial coverage is adequate but not thorough.

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 explicitly states 'permanently delete a project', which is a clear verb+resource combination. It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing the destructive, permanent nature, making it distinct from update or create operations.

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 critical usage condition: 'Requires confirm:true (C13 gate)' and explains that it becomes a no-op otherwise. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternative tools, leaving the usage context partially implied rather than explicit.

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