everhour_delete_project

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

The description discloses that deletion is irreversible, which is an important behavioral trait. However, it does not explain what happens to associated data (e.g., tasks, time records) or permission requirements. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it only partially addresses behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that clearly convey the action and its irreversibility. No wasted words, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 destructive action with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic what and a key warning. However, it lacks important contextual details such as cascading deletions or behavior when the project has tasks. This is a moderate gap for a destructive operation.

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 for the single 'id' parameter with a clear description ('Project ID'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Delete) and resource (a project from Everhour), and explicitly notes the action cannot be undone. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, update, or list projects.

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 (when you want to delete a project) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives. It does not warn about prerequisites or potential side effects that might influence tool selection.

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