Delete an entire project

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

Even though destructiveHint=true is annotated, the description adds crucial behavioral context: all memories labelled with the project name are removed, the operation is irreversible, and it returns the count of deleted memories. This goes beyond the annotation and informs the agent of consequences and return behavior.

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 succinct and front-loaded with 'DESTRUCTIVE', then covers scope, irreversibility, alternative usage, and return value in just three sentences. Every sentence provides essential information without waste.

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?

With a single parameter, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, destructive scope, irreversibility, alternative tool, and return value. It is fully sufficient for this tool's complexity.

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 schema's parameter description already explains the 'name' parameter and its destructive implication. The description reinforces but does not add additional syntax or format details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool deletes an entire project AND every memory inside it, using a specific verb (delete) and resource (project). It also distinguishes itself from sibling ragionex_delete_memory by noting the alternative for partial deletion, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use this tool when deleting an entire project, and use ragionex_delete_memory with explicit IDs when only some memories should be removed. This directly addresses when vs. when-not, and names the alternative tool.

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