projects_delete

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

The description discloses that the delete is not permanent, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., impact on related records), reversibility, or required permissions. Without annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and a key behavioral trait.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the action and the soft-delete behavior. Missing is guidance on usage context, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description adequate.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'id'. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond the schema's 'Project 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'project', and adds the nuance that it marks as deleted without permanent removal, which distinguishes it from a hard delete. It is specific and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like projects_archive or projects_update. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it should be chosen.

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