ncloud_sens_delete_project

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing concrete consequences: channel services, message history, and service IDs become unusable. It also discloses the HTTP endpoint and success code, and confirms the need to use 'confirm' to execute. This explicitly surfaces all critical side effects and the safety gate, with no contradictions.

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 three, compact sentences that immediately front-load a destructive warning, then the resource, the endpoint, the consequences, and the confirm requirement. No wasted words, and useful signals such as the warning symbol and the HTTP code are included. Keep it concise.

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 two-step tool with two parameters, the description covers all necessary information: the object being deleted, the side effects, the confirmation flag, and the success code (204). It is no output schema to explain, but the gap around prerequisites like permissions is not explicitly stated. This description is nearly complete for a simple tool, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 coverage is 100% and the description only repeats that already in the schema: 'projectId' is sourced from the list and 'confirm' must be true. There is no added semantic context beyond the schema, so the baseline is not exceeded.

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'), a resource ('a SENS project'), and a side effect ('its channel services'), which is a clear from the sibling list. The tool name distinguishes it from other SENS project tools (list, get, create, update), and the endpoint is included. This is a highly expressive purpose.

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 clearly indicates that is a 'delete' operation and provides context about the destructive action occurs. However, it does not explicitly mention 'use this when you need to delete permanently' or compare-and-give warnings about alternatives. This is clear context without exclusions, but the lack of a 'when' or another action leaves this is a 4.

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