Delete Project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses that deletion is a move to trash rather than a permanent erase, and that an exact confirmation match is required. It does not cover auth or cascading effects, but the core behavior is clear and not contradicted by any annotation.

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 sentence with no filler. The action and resource appear first, followed by the safety condition, making it easy to parse and directly useful.

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 tool with two required string parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gaps are the ambiguous confirmation parameter semantics and the absence of any usage or permission context, which matter for an agent deciding whether it can safely invoke this deletion.

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 adds meaning by explaining that a confirmation ID must match exactly, which gives context to confirm_project_id. However, it never explicitly states that confirm_project_id must equal project_id or explains where the confirmation ID comes from, leaving some ambiguity.

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 states a specific action ('move to trash') on a specific resource ('a project') and adds a critical condition (confirmation ID matches exactly). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_project, get_project, and restore_version.

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 phrase 'only when the confirmation ID matches exactly' gives a condition for safe invocation, implying the tool should not be used without that confirmation. However, it does not explicitly describe when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusion cases or prerequisites.

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