delete_project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: HTTP 204 on success, immediate effect, and cascade scope onto assets/jobs. The honest caveat that connections/members cascade is unverified is exactly the kind of context an agent needs, though permissions/auth requirements and the role of the confirm flag remain undisclosed.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, but the phrasing 'Confirmed live: 204, immediate' is jargon-heavy and front-loads a status code over the operation itself. A lead clause naming the deletion would make it far more scannable.

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 an irreversible destructive tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no authentication notes, the description leaves too much out. Cascade behavior is the one well-covered area, but the confirm mechanics and failure modes an agent must handle are absent.

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 either parameter. The confirm boolean is especially critical since it presumably gates the destructive action, and the agent is given no clue whether it must be set to true for deletion to proceed.

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 never actually states the operation; the intent (irreversibly deleting a project) is inferred from the tool name and from 'cascades to the project's assets/jobs'. It focuses on behavior notes rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never names a sibling such as delete_connection or delete_job to differentiate scope.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no explicit irreversibility warning, and no routing to alternatives like update_project or delete_job. The only implied guidance is the word 'immediate', which hints at danger without instructing the agent.

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