Delete project

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations by disclosing the cascade to clips, that in-progress work stops, the 7-day retention window before permanent file removal, and the exact return shape. This is the kind of consequence detail an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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 compact sentences: effect first, reversibility second, return contract last. No filler and the destructive consequence is front-loaded.

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?

Covers the cascade, the undo window, and the return payload even though no output schema exists, so an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented with its source tools, so the description adds nothing parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete one of your projects and all its clips') plus the cascading scope. An agent can distinguish it from delete_clip and restore_project without inspecting schemas.

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?

Names the recovery path explicitly ('restore_project brings it back for DELETED_RETENTION_DAYS'), which tells the agent the alternative and the time window for undo. It doesn't spell out when this is preferable to other cleanup calls, but the context is clear.

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