vk_delete_projects_49c21c5d6153

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: it requires authentication, usually has no request body, and parameters are top-level fields with camelCase/snake_case aliases. However, it does not mention permanence of deletion, potential side effects, or response format, leaving some behavioral gaps for a destructive operation.

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 mostly concise but contains redundancy: 'Delete a project view' appears twice. It is front-loaded with the key action, and the rest is information-dense, but the repetition is unnecessary and could be tightened.

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 simple two-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, authentication, request body, and parameter handling. It lacks return-value details, but that is not critical for a delete operation. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Although the schema already describes 'id' and 'project' with 'Required', the description adds semantic value by explaining parameter placement (top-level fields) and alias support (camelCase/snake_case), which are not evident from the schema. This helps the agent understand how to properly pass parameters.

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 clearly states 'Delete a project view' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from generic project deletion by specifying the endpoint 'DELETE /projects/{project}/views/{id}'. It clarifies the tool's scope as a raw proxy for this exact operation, separating it from sibling delete tools.

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 provides clear context by stating the exact REST endpoint and the fact that this is a raw proxy, making the intended use obvious. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the endpoint specificity implies when to use this tool, especially among many similar proxy variants.

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