delete_project

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

Disclosures irreversibility, idempotency, and response format. Annotations already show destructiveHint=true, but the description adds concrete behavioral details (response variability on retry, confirm requirement) that are not in annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence with bold warning, then alternative, then requirement, then idempotency detail. Every word serves a purpose. The warning is front-loaded, immediately highlighting the tool's nature.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers usage context, prerequisites, behavior, and expected response. The tool is simple (2 params, 1 constant), and the description provides enough detail for an agent to invoke correctly without ambiguity.

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% (only confirm has description). However, the description adds context for both parameters: id is implicitly required (though not in required array) and confirm must be true. It also explains the response, which aids understanding. The description compensates well for the schema's lack of detail.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'permanently delete a project (case)'. It uses strong warnings and contrasts with the sibling tool update_project, making it unmistakably clear what it does. The verb 'delete' combined with 'project' uniquely identifies its function among siblings.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'prefer update_project with status='CLOSED'' and when not to use: 'always read the project first ... confirm with the user'. It gives a clear alternative and a required workflow, ensuring correct usage.

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