Delete a draft project

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not the sole source of safety information. The description adds valuable context by defining exactly which projects are eligible for deletion and ruling out launched projects, though it does not explicitly say whether deletion is irreversible or what happens to associated resources.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the critical restriction. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 rich annotations, the description covers the essential precondition and exclusion. It could optionally mention irreversibility or post-deletion effects, but the annotations already signal destructiveness.

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 100%, and the single project_id parameter is documented with its required pattern in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond what is already structured, 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Deletes a project") and immediately narrows the scope to drafts that were never launched. This distinguishes it from the launch-related siblings and makes the tool's purpose 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?

It explicitly states the key eligibility condition: the project must never have been launched, and a launched project cannot be deleted. It does not name an alternative action for launched projects, but the exclusion criterion is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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