Projects Delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds valuable context about non-destructive side effects on child entities. This goes beyond the raw hints without contradicting them, offering useful behavioral detail.

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 remarkably concise: two short sentences, the first clearly states the action, the second resolves a common misconception. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the primary effect and side effects, and annotations handle the safety profile. It lacks only explicit notes on permanence or prerequisites, but these are minor gaps for a tool of this simplicity.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with 'Project ID (UUID)', so the description does not need to add parameter details. No additional semantics are provided in the description, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Delete a project' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like projects_update or projects_create. The additional clarification about generations and assets not being deleted further pins down the exact scope and behavior.

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 provides clear context on what happens when deleting (generations/assets are not deleted, just ungrouped), which helps decide between delete and detach-asset. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it's slightly below full marks.

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