memstate_delete_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a soft-delete (not permanent), creates tombstone versions for all memories, preserves history, hides the project from listings, and can be restored by creating a new project with the same ID. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, but covers the essential destructive nature and recovery mechanism adequately.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action. The 'USE THIS WHEN' section is helpful but slightly repetitive of the purpose. The example usage is concise and adds clarity. Minor improvements could tighten it, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with recovery), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters adequately, providing all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly without over-explaining.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an example usage (memstate_delete_project(project_id='old-project')) which clarifies the parameter's role in context, though it doesn't add deep semantic details beyond what the schema already states ('Required. Project ID to soft-delete.').

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 specific action ('soft-delete an entire project and all its memories') and distinguishes it from siblings like memstate_delete (which likely deletes individual memories) by specifying it affects the entire project. It explains the outcome (creates tombstone versions, preserves history, hides from listings) which clarifies the scope beyond just the name.

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 includes an explicit 'USE THIS WHEN' section that provides clear guidance: 'You want to remove all memories for a project, e.g. cleaning up test data or decommissioning a project.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives, with practical examples.

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