wetrack_delete_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals soft-delete semantics, inactivity, and data retention, which is valuable context. However, it does not mention restoration possibilities, permission requirements, or effects on related data such as tickets, files, or sprints.

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 core description is one clear sentence with no unnecessary wording. The Args block is compact and directly tied to the input schema. The most important behavioral fact, soft-deletion and data retention, is front-loaded.

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 delete operation with an output schema present, the description supplies the key input semantics and the primary behavioral consequence. Additional context about authentication, restore paths, or cascading effects would improve completeness but is not essential for basic 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 defines project_id as 'The project UUID to delete,' adding both a format hint (UUID) and the parameter's role beyond the schema's 'string' type and 'Project Id' title. For a single-parameter tool, this is adequate.

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?

States a specific verb 'soft-delete' and resource 'project', with a parenthetical clarifying the effect: 'it becomes inactive but data is retained.' This distinguishes it from sibling delete operations like wetrack_delete_sprint or wetrack_delete_project_file, which target different resources.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains many project-related tools and other delete operations, but the description does not state when soft-deleting a project is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from other deletion tools.

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