delete_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important behavioral trait that deletion cascades to epics and stories, which is genuinely useful. However, it omits irreversibility, required authorization, and any error behavior, which matter for a destructive 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler that conveys both the action and the cascade consequence. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 one-parameter delete tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, and the cascade disclosure is the key piece of context. It would be complete with a note on irreversibility and whether dependent data must be removed first.

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 single project_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (UUID of the project to delete) at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, constraint, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (project) and adds the cascade scope (associated epics and stories), which an agent cannot infer from the name alone. It does not explicitly route to the sibling delete_epic/delete_story for narrower deletions, so it stops short of full 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?

There is no when-to-use vs when-not guidance: nothing tells the agent to prefer delete_epic/delete_story for partial cleanup, and no prerequisites, permission requirements, or confirmation steps are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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