delete_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing the destructive nature ('Delete a project and all its task lists and tasks') and specific constraints about default projects. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the deletion is reversible, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the action and scope, the second provides critical exclusion criteria. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the scope of deletion and important constraints. However, it doesn't mention what happens on success/failure or return values, which would be helpful given the lack of output 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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (project_id as UUID, project_name as alternative). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('Delete a project') and scope ('and all its task lists and tasks'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_task_list' which only removes task lists. It provides a complete picture of what the tool does beyond just the name.

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 explicitly states when NOT to use this tool ('Default projects (Chore, Repeatable) cannot be deleted'), providing crucial exclusion criteria. This helps the agent avoid attempting deletions that will fail, distinguishing it from alternatives like 'update_project' for modifying instead of removing.

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