delete_project_estimate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies destructive intent, but the description does not mention permanence, cascading effects (e.g., on estimate points), permission requirements, or any other side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 appropriately terse for a simple one-parameter tool: a single clear sentence plus an args list. No filler or redundant information, though the args section could be formatted more cleanly.

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?

The description covers the basic action and parameter but omits critical context for a delete operation: irreversibility, effects on associated data, potential errors, and what the response looks like. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for safe and confident invocation.

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 description identifies the single parameter and specifies it as a 'UUID of the project', which adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. However, it does not explain how to obtain the project_id or any constraints beyond the UUID format, leaving room for more detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('estimate for a project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_project_estimate_point or delete_project. The purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as delete_project_estimate_point for deleting individual estimate points. No context or exclusion criteria is provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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