Delete Project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the irreversibility and repeatability are covered without description help. The description adds only the scope qualifier "global registry"; it says nothing about what happens to the project's entries, tags, or links, or whether authorization is required.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler, so it is efficiently sized. The terseness is an under-specification problem rather than a conciseness one.

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?

This is a destructive registry mutation with an undocumented second parameter and no statement of side effects on associated data. Output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, but the agent still cannot predict the blast radius of the call.

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 coverage is 50%: `name` is documented in the schema, but `use_test_db` has no description anywhere and the description does not compensate for it. The description also adds no clarification that `name` is a registry key rather than an ID.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Remove a project from the global registry" tells the agent exactly what is being deleted and at what scope. It is reasonably distinguishable from register_project/update_project/list_projects and from entry-level deletes, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this versus update_project, list_projects, or the entry-level delete tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions (e.g. whether the project must be empty first). The agent must infer all routing.

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