Delete Project

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

Even though annotations already declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint, the description adds significant behavioral detail: deletion is permanent, a deletion commit may be created, confirmProjectName must match the current backend name, and the handler reads the project immediately before deleting. This gives the agent a clear and actionable safety model beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the action, then cover side effects and the safety requirement. Every sentence contributes distinct information: what the tool does, what side effects may occur, and what safeguards and parameters matter.

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 complete schema coverage and meaningful annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers permanence, repository side effects, safety confirmation requirements, and commit behavior, while the response_format enum in the schema defines the expected output shapes.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by explaining that confirmProjectName must match the project's current backend name and that the handler reads the project right before deletion. It also clarifies that the optional comment becomes the deletion commit message, reinforcing and extending the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a project through Studio,' and further clarifies that deletion may create a commit in the design repository. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like openl_delete_project_file, openl_delete_project_branch, and openl_delete_table.

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 intended context is clear: use this tool when you need to permanently remove an entire project, and the safety guard tells callers they must provide the exact current backend project name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the operation and prerequisites are specific enough that an agent can correctly route to it.

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