delete_project

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

The description only states 'Delete a project', implying destructiveness, but lacks details on irreversibility, cascading effects on tasks or time entries, and required permissions. With no annotations, the burden is on the description to disclose these traits.

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 very concise (3 words), but it lacks structure and important context. It is not front-loaded with essential information that would help the agent decide to use it.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not address what happens to associated tasks, sessions, or time entries, nor does it mention error conditions like invalid IDs.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter 'id' ('Project ID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 'Delete a project' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_project, update_project, and delete_task. It is unambiguous about the action and object.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., project must have no active tasks) or scenarios where deletion should be avoided.

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