Delete element

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

Annotations already mark this destructive and non-idempotent, and the description goes beyond that by disclosing cascade scope (dependencies / subproject content are removed with the element), the protected resource (main project cannot be deleted), and reversibility ('One undo step'). These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before committing a destructive call.

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 destructive scope and the protected-root constraint are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information. The third sentence ('Here element means a task or a subproject - this is the generic way that takes either') slightly restates what the opening sentence already implied, which is the only real redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. With cascade behavior, the undeletable project, the undo guarantee, and routing to the two kind-specific siblings all covered, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines uuid as the task/subproject identifier and the description adds nothing further (no format, no way to obtain the UUID). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 (deletes) and resource (task or subproject), and explicitly defines the ambiguous term 'element' so the agent knows the tool is the polymorphic variant. It also names the two sibling tools that handle single kinds, so an agent can distinguish this tool from rillsoft_task_delete and rillsoft_subproject_delete without opening a 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?

It gives an explicit selection rule: use this generic tool when the element kind is unknown, and use rillsoft_task_delete / rillsoft_subproject_delete when the kind is known ('they refuse the other kind'). It also states an exclusion — 'The main project cannot be deleted' — which prevents a whole class of failed calls.

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