delete_project

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains that the project is archived immediately and deleted in a background job, lists the affected sub-entities (work packages, memberships, versions, etc.), states irreversibility, mentions automatic deletion of storage folders, and describes rejection conditions. This is rich transparency for a destructive operation and is consistent with the provided 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 front-loaded with the core action but becomes wordy and includes a confusing final sentence: 'Unless the project is already archived, rejected while work packages of other projects use one of their versions.' This sentence is grammatically awkward and adds ambiguity. The overall structure could be tightened without losing important information.

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 complexity (destructive, asynchronous deletion, open-world), the absence of an output schema, and the annotations covering safety hints, the description provides all necessary context: what gets deleted, irreversibility, background job behavior, and rejection conditions. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly, including the need to preview via the confirm parameter (documented in the schema).

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%, so both parameters (confirm, project) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters—it does not explain the confirm preview behavior or the project matching rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a project and its subprojects (admin operation).' This unambiguously distinguishes it from other delete tools (delete_news, delete_work_package, etc.) and from update_project. An agent can immediately understand the tool's purpose.

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 clear context: it is an admin operation that cannot be undone, and it lists conditions when deletion is rejected. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives (there are no alternatives for deleting a project), but the context is sufficient for an agent to know this is the tool for removing a project. No misleading guidance.

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