Delete Shortcut Project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing destructive behavior. It explicitly states 'Permanently delete' and 'IRREVERSIBLE', and it discloses the required confirmation flags, which signals a safety mechanism. However, it does not describe side effects on associated data (e.g., stories, epics) or what happens with dry_run, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding essential safety information. Every word earns its place, and it is highly scannable for an agent.

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 description is adequate for a destructive tool with confirmation requirements, but it omits the semantics of dry_run and does not indicate the expected return value or outcome. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should fill these gaps to be fully complete. It covers the most critical context (permanence and confirmation) but leaves some operational aspects ambiguous.

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 schema already describes confirm and confirm_delete, and the description reiterates them without adding new semantic detail. It does not explain project_id or dry_run, which the schema leaves undocumented. Schema coverage is only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the uncovered parameters, so it provides only marginal added value.

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 'Permanently delete a Shortcut project' with a specific verb and resource. It also highlights irreversibility, which distinguishes it from non-destructive project operations like update_project. As one of several delete_* siblings, the target resource is unambiguous, so it differentiates from delete_story and delete_epic.

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 description provides clear context: use when permanently deleting a project. It explicitly states the confirmation requirements (confirm_delete=true and confirm='CONFIRM_WRITE'), which serves as a prerequisite for invocation. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicit 'when not to use' scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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