Delete Project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so 'cannot be undone' is largely redundant. However, the description contributes genuine new behavior by disclosing that the deletion cascades to all tasks in the project, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the irreversibility warning placed immediately after. Nothing is wasted and nothing 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 destructive tool, the annotations carry most of the safety burden and an output schema exists, so the description only needs to state impact — which it does via the cascade disclosure. Missing only parameter-format and precondition detail.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about project_id — no format, source, or how to obtain it. With a single, self-evidently named parameter the gap is small, but the description does not compensate for the near-total lack of schema documentation.

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 ('delete') and resource ('project') and adds the crucial cascade scope ('and all its tasks'), which separates it from the sibling dida365_delete_task. An agent can tell exactly what this tool removes without opening the schema.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g., whether the project must be empty), and never names the alternative path (e.g., dida365_update_project or delete_task) for partial removal. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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