delete_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cascade ('along with their edges'), which is meaningful destructive context, but says nothing about reversibility, permissions, or what happens when no beliefs match the tag. This is a genuinely helpful disclosure on an otherwise under-specified destructive bulk operation.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the destructive scope and cascade are front-loaded before the usage hint.

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 bulk delete with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and cascade but leaves return behavior, idempotency, and failure modes unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps for a high-impact 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 0%, so the single 'project' param is undocumented structurally. The phrase 'tagged with a project name' implies the param is a project tag/name, adding some meaning, but it omits matching semantics (exact vs partial) and format.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('all beliefs tagged with a project name, along with their edges'), and the bulk-by-project scope implicitly distinguishes it from the single-item delete_belief/delete_pattern siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 a clear condition for use: 'to forget project-specific knowledge when a project is complete.' This gives good context, but it names no alternative (e.g. delete_belief for single-belief removal) and offers no exclusion for when NOT to use it.

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