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 well: it discloses permanent deletion, cascade effects on requirements and user stories, irreversibility, the confirm requirement, and that Jira issues are untouched. It stops short of covering permissions or error behavior, but the core destructive semantics are clear.

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?

Three short sentences are front-loaded with the most important fact—permanent deletion—and each sentence adds distinct value: cascade scope, confirm requirement, irreversibility, and Jira exclusion.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is deleted, what is not deleted, the confirmation gate, and irreversibility. Only minor operational details such as permissions or response behavior are missing.

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 50%, with confirm already described in the schema and projectId undocumented. The description reinforces the confirm requirement but adds no meaning for projectId beyond what its name implies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a project', and clarifies the cascade scope by naming requirements and user stories. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool archive_project, which is the main omission.

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?

It states the key prerequisite that confirm must be true and warns that the action cannot be undone. However, it never explicitly says when to use this instead of archive_project or other alternatives, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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