delete_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to associated data (e.g., tasks in deleted projects). This leaves significant gaps for safe agent 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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action. Both sentences are necessary: the first states the purpose, the second explains parameter usage. No wasted words, though it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for behaviors).

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (permanence, side effects), error information, and output expectations. Given the complexity and risk of deletion, this is inadequate for safe agent invocation.

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. It explains that either 'id' or 'name' can identify targets, and implies 'id' is preferred, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify the 'items' array structure or constraints (e.g., bulk deletion limits).

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('projects from Todoist'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_tasks' or 'delete_comments' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'move_projects' or 'update_projects' in terms of destructive nature.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_projects' or 'update_projects', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs) or consequences. It only explains parameter identification, not contextual usage.

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