delete_project

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true; description adds idempotency details and response format. No contradiction, though annotations cover destructiveness primarily.

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?

Four sentences all essential: warning, alternative recommendation, prerequisite, and idempotency. Front-loaded with critical info.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, parameter constraints, and response format. No output schema, but response is described. Complete for a destructive tool with 2 params.

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 50%; the description explicitly requires confirm=true and implies id from get_project. However, the id parameter lacks description in both schema and description beyond implicit reading. Response format clarifies parameter effects.

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 the tool deletes a project permanently and contrasts with update_project for non-destructive closure. It uses specific verb 'delete' and resource 'project', distinguishing it from siblings like update_project.

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?

Explicitly advises using update_project with status='CLOSED' as an alternative, and instructs to first read the project with get_project and confirm with user. Provides clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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