delete_project

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses destructive and irreversible nature, idempotency on retry with detailed response format, and the confirm requirement. This compensates for lack of annotations.

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?

Two sentences pack critical info: warning, alternative, requirements, and response. Slightly dense but efficient. Minor structure improvement possible.

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, description specifies the exact response format for both first and subsequent calls. Covers safety, prerequisites, idempotency, and user confirmation flow. Complete for a destructive tool.

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 50% (confirm described, id not). Description adds context for both parameters: id usage implied in 'read the project first with get_project and confirm with the user', and confirm's purpose reinforced. Compensates for coverage gap.

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?

Verb 'delete' + resource 'project (case)' clearly states purpose. Distinguishes from update_project with status='CLOSED' as a safer alternative, providing sibling differentiation.

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 to use update_project with status='CLOSED' instead for preserving history. Requires confirm=true and instructs to read project first and get user confirmation, providing clear when-to-use and prerequisites.

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