Delete project (DESTRUCTIVE)

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds crucial behavioral context: deletion is 'NOT reversible', 'there is no undo', 'live collaboration sessions on it are dropped', and a write role is required. This goes well beyond destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, and nothing in the description contradicts the 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?

The description is three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, follows with the most important warning (permanent/no undo/dropped sessions), and ends with the authorization requirement. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 mutation with no output schema sinyal, this description covers scope ('entire estate'), irreversibility, side effects on live sessions, and required permissions. There are only two parameters and the schema documents them fully, so the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and safely.

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%, so the schema already documents id ('prj_…') and org (org id, slug, name, defaults). The description adds the role requirement but does not need to repeat param semantics; the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a project and its entire estate.' This is more specific than the title and clearly distinguishes the tool from update_project, rename_project, move_project, and export_project by emphasizing permanent, irreversible deletion of the whole project scope.

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 makes the usage context unmistakable: use it when a project and its entire estate must be permanently removed/formatted, and it clarifies the required role ('editor/owner role required'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the destructive-purpose framing makes the distinction from non-destructive project tools obvious.

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