vikunja_delete_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Delete,' which implies a destructive operation, but does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to tasks or related data, whether confirmation is required, or what permissions are needed. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutating tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Delete a project by ID.' It contains no filler, restates nothing, and is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimally adequate but does not explain return values, error conditions, or side effects (e.g., whether related tasks are deleted). Given the simplicity, it is a passable baseline, but there is a clear gap in behavioral context.

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 input schema already provides full coverage (100%) with a single parameter 'project_id' described as 'Project ID.' The description adds only 'by ID,' which mirrors the schema without adding new semantic detail. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 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?

The description 'Delete a project by ID' uses a specific verb ('Delete') with a clear resource ('project') and method ('by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like vikunja_get_project, vikunja_update_project, and vikunja_delete_task. It directly states the operation's purpose without ambiguity.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool (e.g., vikunja_get_project or vikunja_update_project) would be more appropriate. The only implied usage is 'to delete a project,' which is minimal.

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