Delete project

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) by explaining the permanent nature, the refusal behavior, the two-step confirmation with confirm_token, and the token's state-specific validity. It also explicitly notes that the first call returns what would be lost, providing crucial operational detail.

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?

Despite being lengthy, every sentence carries essential information. The structure is logical: purpose, condition, permanence, safety policy, then the two-step process. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy. The density is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 is complete for a destructive tool with a confirmation workflow. It covers what it does, when to use, the exact procedure, the token mechanism, and the impact on associated resources. Without an output schema, it describes the first call's return value, ensuring the agent knows what to expect.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain the parameters. It clearly explains delete_timelines (deletes every timeline and published pages) and confirm_token (returned from first call, required for second call). project_id is self-evident. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: to delete a project. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_timeline by specifying the behavior regarding timelines. The action is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: only on the user's explicit request, never as tidying up or for other indirect reasons. It also explains the two-step confirmation process, which is essential for safe usage. While it doesn't name alternatives, the conditions and procedural requirements are clearly laid out.

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