delete_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the action is permanent, cannot be undone, deletes all tasks, and requires explicit user confirmation before calling. This is excellent behavioral disclosure 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 and scope in the first sentence, followed directly by the necessary warning and confirmation requirement. Every sentence serves a clear 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 single-parameter destructive delete operation, the description covers the key behavioral details and the required confirmation step. It does not explain the fate of associated folders or tags, but the explicit mention of tasks and the project itself is sufficient for the given complexity.

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 input schema already covers the sole parameter 'id' with 100% description coverage ('The project's id.primaryKey'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a project and ALL its tasks.' It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like complete_project and drop_project by emphasizing permanent deletion and the cascading effect on tasks. The scope is unambiguous.

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 a mandatory precondition: the user must explicitly confirm and be informed that tasks will be deleted. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like drop_project or other project operations, so the usage context is implied rather than fully explicit.

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