delete_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It details the full destructive cascade (drop schema, delete functions, release subdomains, tombstone mailbox, remove sender domain, wipe secrets and app versions, set status=purged, remove from local key store) and explicitly states the action is irreversible. This provides comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the key action and details. While it is informative, it is somewhat verbose (over 50 words) and could be more concise without losing essential information. It earns a 4 for being well-structured but slightly wordy.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the effects thoroughly, distinguishes from related actions, and provides all necessary context for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

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 single parameter `project_id` has a schema description already stating it's the project ID for irreversible deletion. The tool description reiterates this but does not add additional semantic information beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal extra value for parameter understanding.

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 action 'Immediately and irreversibly delete a project' and enumerates specific destructive operations (drop tenant schema, delete Lambda functions, etc.). It distinguishes itself from the automatic lease-expiry grace window and mentions the alternative tool `set_tier`, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 to use this tool (explicit purge) and when not to (to recover from a missed renewal, use `set_tier`). It also clarifies that this action is distinct from the lease-expiry grace window, providing clear usage context and alternatives.

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