Delete project

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It confirms the operation is destructive but says nothing about permanence, whether contents (tasks, requests) are cascaded, required permissions, or confirmation behavior — all critical for an irreversible-sounding delete.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but its brevity is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It earns its place only by naming the operation.

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, single-parameter, unannotated tool with no output schema, the description is inadequate: no effect scope, no reversibility, no post-conditions, no error modes. An agent cannot safely call this without guessing.

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 0% for the single parameter. The description adds no meaning about project_id beyond its obvious name (e.g., whether it accepts a numeric string, which the schema hints at but does not label). It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('project'), so intent is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling delete tools (delete_task, delete_change, delete_user) and no scope or consequences, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., whether projects can be trashed or restored, as changes can via trash_change/restore_change). The agent must infer everything from the name.

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