Delete Project

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

The description discloses that the tool deletes associated data, which complements the destructiveHint=true annotation. However, it doesn't add much beyond the annotation, such as irreversibility or cascading effects, though the annotation already covers destructive behavior.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word contributes value with no 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 tool with one parameter, destructive annotation, and no output schema, the description provides complete information. It clearly states the target and the scope of deletion ('all its associated data'), making it sufficient for the agent.

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 fully describes the single parameter project_id, and the description adds no additional semantic meaning. With schema description coverage at 100%, 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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' and names the resource 'MiroFish project', clearly stating the action. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like mirofish_delete_graph and mirofish_delete_report by specifying 'all its associated data'.

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 usage is implied from the name and description, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool vs alternatives like mirofish_reset_project or mirofish_delete_graph. It doesn't mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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