delete-project

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns 'This action is destructive and cannot be undone,' which is a critical behavioral trait for a deletion tool. It also states the HTTP method (DELETE) and 'Permanently delete' to reinforce irreversibility. However, it does not mention potential side effects, such as whether associated chats or files within the project are also deleted, which would be useful context.

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 action, followed by the API mapping and a clear irreversibility warning. Every sentence contributes substantive information without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is deleted, the endpoint, the destructive nature, and the parameter's role. It could optionally mention the response format, but given the structured schema and low complexity, the omission is acceptable.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter, folder_uuid, as 'Project UUID to delete (required).' The description adds minor semantic value by clarifying that a project is also called a folder and embedding the parameter in the API endpoint, but it doesn't extend meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Permanently delete') and the resource ('a syntx.ai project (a.k.a. folder)'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete-chat and delete-file. It also provides the exact API endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies usage by identifying the resource as a project/folder, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it offer exclusions or alternative tool guidance. The phrase 'Mirrors `syntx.folders.delete`' hints at an equivalent API but doesn't clarify when that API should be chosen instead.

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