delete_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does a strong job: it discloses that deletion happens, that preview is the default, that confirm=true bypasses the preview, and that _global is protected. It could additionally state irreversibility or what happens to nested content, but the existing disclosures are substantial for a destructive tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds relevant safety or usage information, though the phrase 'with the preview's expected' is awkwardly worded and slightly obscure. Minor syntax aside, the structure is efficient.

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 output schema exists, so return-value documentation is covered elsewhere. However, the description omits key parameter semantics and does not clearly define what 'expected' should contain or how preview behaves. For a destructive tool with no annotations, this leaves a few important operational details unresolved.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters. It only meaningfully touches on confirm and expected ('Preview unless confirm=true with the preview's expected'), leaving project, working_folder, and why unexplained. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to construct valid calls.

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 opening phrase 'Delete a project directory' uses a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose unmistakable. It is clearly distinguished from sibling delete tools like delete_skill, delete_stanza, and delete_role by targeting 'project directory'. The additional constraint 'Cannot delete _global' further sharpens the tool's scope.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Do not call unless the user explicitly asked to delete this project.' It also states a clear exclusion—'Findings are not a reason to delete'—which prevents misuse. The preview-confirm behavior adds another layer of usage context.

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