aap_delete_project

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces it with 'DESTRUCTIVE - requires confirmation.' It goes beyond annotations by explaining the confirmation token flow and the return behavior (confirmation prompt or success JSON). 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?

The description is compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value; no filler.

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?

The description fully explains the delete operation, including the required confirmation step and the return format. The output schema is present, so return details are not needed. The tool is simple enough that this description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explicitly lists both parameters and their meanings. It adds the crucial detail that confirmation_token is the token from the first call, which is essential for the two-step flow. project_id is described as 'Project ID,' which is minimal but clear.

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 'Delete an AAP project' — a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling delete tools, but the resource is clear from the name and description. The confirmation note adds specificity.

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 doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives, but it clearly communicates the two-step confirmation process: first call returns a prompt, and the token from that call must be passed to confirm deletion. This provides context on how to use it correctly. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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