freeagent_delete_project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether the deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related timeslips or tasks, or whether any confirmation step is required. For a destructive mutation, this is a meaningful omission.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is the right shape for a simple tool. It is efficient, though its terseness means it conveys no more than the tool name and annotations already do.

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?

The tool is structurally simple — one required parameter, no output schema, no nesting — and annotations cover the destructive read/write profile. What is missing is behavioral context around an irreversible operation: cascade effects, recoverability, and confirmation expectations. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, but not complete for a destructive tool.

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 parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries parameter meaning and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format hints or constraints beyond what the schema's pattern and description already provide.

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 ('a project') plus the product context (FreeAgent), so an agent can immediately tell it apart from freeagent_update_project, freeagent_get_project, and freeagent_create_project. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings, which keeps it from 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 versus freeagent_update_project or whether deletion is the intended path, and no prerequisites or warnings are offered. The agent must infer everything about usage context from the tool name alone.

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