noteking_delete_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one important non-obvious behavior: child notes are preserved as standalone notes rather than cascaded. It does not say whether deletion is reversible, whether the project must be empty or owned by the caller, or what happens when the id does not exist.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the only non-obvious consequence. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 one-parameter delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the key side effect is covered, which is the main thing an agent needs before calling it. Only irreversibility and failure behavior are left unstated, which is a minor but real gap for a destructive operation.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Unique identifier of the project to delete"), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct here.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Delete a project from NoteKing") and the parenthetical clarifies the effect on related notes, which separates it from noteking_delete_note. It does not explicitly name or rule out any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no stated alternative (e.g. use noteking_delete_note for individual notes). The only implicit guidance is the parenthetical note that notes survive, which hints that pre-deleting notes is unnecessary but never says so.

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