vk_delete_projects_aaf8e9ef7dfe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that 'Authentication is required' and that the endpoint 'does not usually require a request body', and mentions parameter naming conventions. However, it does not disclose the destructive impact (e.g., whether related tasks are deleted), return format, or error behavior, which are relevant for a delete 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 short and front-loaded, but it contains redundant statements: 'Deletes a project' appears twice (once with a typo 'Delets a project') and the phrase 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy' is repeated in a sense. This waste and inconsistency reduce clarity and professionalism, though the content is otherwise compact.

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, single-parameter delete tool, the description covers the core action, endpoint, request body expectation, authentication requirement, and parameter conventions. However, it does not explain the return value or error scenarios, and it does not clarify how this tool relates to the many similar sibling tools, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear 'Project ID Required.' description for the only parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that 'Path and query parameters are top-level fields' and that 'original parameter names also accept camelCase and snake_case aliases', which helps with correct parameter invocation.

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 'Deletes a project' and gives the specific endpoint 'DELETE /projects/{id}', which identifies the action and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the numerous sibling tools that also delete projects (e.g., vikunja_delete_project, vk_delete_projects_*), so it misses the differentiation aspect 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternatives. It mentions it is a 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy' but does not explain when a raw proxy should be preferred over the higher-level vikunja_delete_project or other vk_delete_projects variants. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are given.

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