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. It explicitly warns that the action is 'Destructive' and requires 'confirm=true', and states that it deletes 'everything in it', disclosing the cascading effect. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a delete operation, though it could also mention irreversibility or permissions.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the action, immediately states scope, and includes the essential safety requirement. Every word adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 delete tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what is deleted, the destructive nature, and the confirmation requirement. It could be enhanced by explicitly stating that the action is irreversible or by noting any permissions needed, but it is largely complete for making an informed 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 input schema provides only types for project_id and confirm, with 0% description coverage. The description adds critical meaning by explaining that confirm must be set to true for the deletion to proceed. project_id is self-explanatory from the name and tool context, so the description sufficiently compensates where needed.

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 an ENTIRE project and everything in it.' It identifies the specific resource (project) and scope (entire project including contents), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_work_item or delete_design_element.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to delete a whole project and everything in it. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not to use it, but the context is unambiguous. The instruction to set confirm=true also implies a controlled usage scenario.

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