Delete Project

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, but the description adds crucial context: the action is irreversible ('cannot be undone') and requires a confirmation step, which is not evident from annotations alone. It clearly explains the interactive vs. confirm: true flow.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and irreversibility, followed by a concise explanation of the confirmation behavior. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the expected flow: a first call returns a preview, and a second call with confirm: true completes deletion (unless interactively prompted). This covers the necessary context for a destructive operation, and the sibling list shows clear placement among project tools.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters (id and confirm) with detailed descriptions, including the confirmation semantics. The tool description reiterates this but adds little new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Delete a project by id') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_update or project_list. It specifies the resource type and the method, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: deletion requires confirmation, with a two-step process for non-interactive clients (first call preview, second call confirm: true) and automatic interactive prompting for elicitation-capable clients. This effectively tells the agent when and how to use the tool, and the confirmation alternative.

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