gatekeeper_delete_project

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds important nuance: the operation archives rather than permanently destroys and preserves payments and audit log. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying what will and will not be affected.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core operation (archive/soft delete), then adds the key preservation behavior and the primary use case, all relevant and necessary information.

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?

The description covers purpose, use case, and behavioral nuance well, and the annotations supply the destructive/read-only profile. However, it omits any explanation of the required 'slug' parameter and the return value or confirmation behavior, leaving a small but real gap for correct invocation.

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 sole parameter 'slug' is completely undocumented in the description, and schema coverage is 0%. While 'slug' may be a common identifier concept, the description does not connect it to the project or explain how to source it, so the agent receives no additional semantic guidance.

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 a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('Gatekeeper project'), and immediately clarifies that this is a soft delete rather than a permanent deletion. It distinguishes the operation from the tool's name and from other Gatekeeper management tools, making the intent unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when removing a client while keeping historical data.' It does not name an alternative for permanent deletion, but the soft-delete framing implies the exclusion, providing clear contextual guidance.

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