delete_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., deleting associated items). The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a destructive 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?

The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There's no wasted language, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to address critical aspects like permissions, irreversibility, error conditions, or what happens to dependent resources, leaving significant gaps for safe and correct usage.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the single parameter 'projectId' is undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what 'projectId' represents, its format, or where to find it. This leaves the parameter's meaning ambiguous despite the low parameter count.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a GitHub project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'archive_project_item' or 'delete_milestone', which are also deletion operations on related resources.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), consequences (e.g., permanent deletion), or when to choose other deletion tools like 'delete_milestone' or 'archive_project_item'.

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