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 that the action is 'move to trash', which implies non-permanent deletion. However, it omits details like whether tasks within the project are also trashed, if authorization is needed, or if the operation is reversible. The description adds some value beyond the name but is incomplete.

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: two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and immediately explains the argument. There is no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple with one parameter, so the description is nearly complete for basic usage. However, it lacks details about return values, side effects on tasks, and recovery options. The output schema exists but is not described. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 reflects that it is adequate but not thorough.

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?

There is one required parameter 'uuid'. The description explicitly says 'uuid: Project UUID.' This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only has a title and type. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation is significant, though it is minimal.

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: 'Move a project to the trash.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_task' and 'complete_project'. The phrase 'move to trash' also clarifies that it is not a permanent deletion.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that moving to trash is reversible or that the user can recover projects from trash using 'list_trash'. It lacks any context about prerequisites or compared to 'complete_project' or 'update_project'.

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