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 of behavioral disclosure. It states only the action 'Deletes' without revealing whether the deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related entities, or whether special permissions are needed. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 a single sentence, 'Deletes a project', which is maximally concise with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simple action it describes, though it trades depth for brevity.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to mention side effects, return values, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without essential operational context. The minimalism undermines its usefulness in real-world invocation scenarios.

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 fully describes both parameters (projectId and projectKey) with clear descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but it also doesn't need to given the schema's high coverage. However, it does not clarify that at least one of the two optional parameters is likely required, which leaves some semantic ambiguity.

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 ('Deletes') and the resource ('a project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination that unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_issue or delete_watching by explicitly naming 'project' as the target.

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, nor are there any prerequisites, exclusions, or context about required permissions. The description is a bare statement with no usage context, leaving the agent to infer when deletion of a project is appropriate.

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