devbook_delete_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does creditably flag that contained prompts become standalone or are deleted. However, 'depending on cascade' is vague and, given the schema exposes no cascade flag, the agent cannot tell what controls it, whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions are required.

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?

One compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the parenthetical carrying the only non-obvious information. Slightly muddled phrasing ('depending on cascade') costs it a point but nothing is wasted.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key data-loss nuance but omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and whether prompts are orphaned or removed under which conditions. It is adequate but leaves real decision-relevant gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat it. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline for a one-parameter tool.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete a project from Devbook') and adds the consequence for child prompts, which goes beyond the name alone. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling deleters like devbook_delete_prompt, but the resource is 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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., updating vs. deleting a project), and no stated prerequisites. The parenthetical describes a side effect rather than telling the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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