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 structurally. The description earns credit for disclosing blast radius beyond annotations ('Issues are not deleted'), which directly tells the agent what survives a destructive call. It omits irreversibility and permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the action front-loaded and the critical caveat immediately following. Nothing is padded or restated.

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 tool with no output schema, annotations carry the safety profile and the description covers scope. The confirm parameter is documented in the schema, so the main omission is any note on irreversibility or required permissions, which is minor here.

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 100%, so both parameters (projectId, confirm) are already documented in the schema, including the confirm flag's purpose. The description's 'by id' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Delete a project by id') and adds a scope note ('Issues are not deleted'). It is unambiguous against siblings like delete_board or delete_entity, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to distinguish itself further.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. archive vs delete), nor any prerequisites about permissions or the confirm flag. The scope note implies context but does not route the agent.

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