Delete project

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds what an annotation cannot: the exact cascade (keywords, rank history, optimizer drafts), the irreversibility ("Permanently"), and the fail-safe that a confirmName mismatch deletes nothing. That is real behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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 sentences, zero filler. What is destroyed comes first, then the precondition and the safety guarantee, in the order an agent needs them before committing to a destructive call.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with strong annotations, all the decision-relevant facts are present; even the no-output-schema gap is minor since a delete's outcome is binary. It stops short of describing the success response (deleted counts / confirmation payload) or error modes for a nonexistent projectId.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the consequence of confirmName (mismatch = no deletion) and ties the value source to get_overview, which the schema only states in shorthand. It does not add anything for projectId beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("Permanently delete a project") and immediately scopes the blast radius to keywords, rank history and optimizer drafts, which no sibling delete/move tool does. An agent can distinguish this from remove_keywords, remove_folder, move_project or update_project without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition — "Only when the owner asked for this exact project" — plus the required confirmation flow, so the agent knows when to proceed and when to abort. It does not name alternative tools for narrower intents (e.g. removing only keywords), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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