Delete RIS project

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: the delete is a soft delete (deactivation, restorable by an administrator), it takes effect immediately with no undo step, and it runs under the desktop session login. The destructiveHint/idempotentHint flags are already given, but these operational details are genuinely additive.

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 core action and keeps every clause informative, but the refusal/alternative sentence and the 'local file is not touched' remark make it denser than strictly necessary. Still no filler or repetition.

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 no explanation, and the description covers reversibility, refusal conditions, timing, and session context. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (projectId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the meaning including the source list tool. The description adds no format or edge-case detail about the id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (deletes a RIS project of the logged-in client) and anchors it to a concrete UI affordance ('Delete project' button of the folder dialog). It also names the sibling it is not (rillsoft_project_ris_save_as) and the related create tool, so an agent can separate it from the many other *_delete siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when the call will be refused (project open alone or inside the open portfolio, error ris_project_is_open) and what to do instead, and contrasts it with the counterpart that creates projects. It also notes a local file is untouched, which heads off confusion with the project_file_* siblings.

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