Delete project

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

Annotations only carry idempotentHint, so the description does the heavy lifting: it discloses irreversibility ('no trash to recover from; this cannot be undone'), severity ranking ('most destructive call in the API'), a mandatory confirmation gate, and cost/latency ('one API call, about 0.5s'). Nothing here is derivable from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the destructive scope in the first clause, then adds recovery, confirmation, and cost in compact clauses. Every sentence earns its place and the ordering matches what an agent needs to decide before acting.

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?

No output schema exists and the tool has one fully-documented parameter, so the description's job is risk framing and preconditions — both are covered. An agent has everything it needs to decide whether to call this and how to prepare.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'code' parameter, so the schema already documents the format and pattern. The description only restates 'by code' and adds a verification step, which is marginally useful but not new semantic detail.

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 an entire project by code') and immediately enumerates the blast radius ('every case, suite, run, result, defect and milestone in it'). This clearly distinguishes it from the granular siblings such as qase_case_delete and qase_suite_delete without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('confirm the code with qase_project_context first') and the confirmation workflow ('does not proceed without it'), which is clear usage context. It stops short of explicitly routing narrower deletions to the granular delete siblings, which is the one missing piece of when-not guidance.

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