eda_dmt_project_delete_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (boolean success), but omits critical behavioral details: deletion is likely permanent and destructive, may affect associated documents, and may require confirmation. The word 'delete' implies destructiveness, but the description does not state the scope or reversibility.

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 lines deliver the signature, purpose, and return meaning with no filler. The 'returns' line slightly duplicates the -> boolean, but it adds semantic value by clarifying that the boolean indicates success, so the redundancy is minor.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not state that projectUuid is required, how to obtain it, whether deletion is permanent, or what side effects occur on associated data. An agent would need to infer these from the name and sibling 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 only describes args as a generic array and windowId; it does not define the actual parameters. The description's signature 'deleteProject(projectUuid: string)' supplies the essential parameter name and type, without which the agent could not construct a valid call. This fully compensates for the opaque schema sub-structure.

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 the operation explicitly: 'dmt_Project.deleteProject(projectUuid: string)' and '删除工程', clearly identifying the action (delete) and resource (project). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling deletion tools, but the resource name provides enough distinction. The function signature adds precise technical clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of when deletion is appropriate, prerequisites such as obtaining the project UUID, or situations where a different tool (e.g., move_project or modify) should be used. The description only states what the tool does, not when to invoke it.

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