project_delete

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

The destructiveHint annotation already warns about destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by stating the project must not be open, implying the operation will fail or is unsafe otherwise. It also mentions 'irreversible' in the parameter description, which reinforces the permanent nature of the action beyond the annotation.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the primary action and adding the critical precondition. No extraneous words or redundant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential action and a key prerequisite. It does not detail failure modes (e.g., project not found) or return values, but the output schema is present to handle that. The tool's simplicity means this is nearly complete.

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 input schema fully covers the single parameter 'name' with a description ('Exact name of the project to delete. This action is irreversible.'), achieving 100% coverage. The main description repeats 'by name' but adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter format or behavior, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Delete a project by name' with a specific verb (delete) and resource (project), clearly distinguishing from sibling operations like project_archive, project_save, or project_close. The scope ('by name') is explicit and matches the parameter.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'The project must NOT be currently open.' This gives essential when-to-use context and implies the tool should not be used for open projects. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or list scenarios where a different tool would be preferred, such as using project_archive for non-destructive removal.

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