Delete Project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The word 'permanently' indicates irreversibility, but it does not elaborate on cascading effects (e.g., related tasks, subtasks), permission requirements, or confirmation steps. Without annotations, this is insufficient transparency for a destructive operation.

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 is front-loaded with the core action and its most critical implication ('permanently'). There is zero redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description could be minimal. However, the lack of annotations and the absence of any behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility consequences, side effects, prerequisites) makes it incomplete for a destructive operation. Even a simple delete would benefit from a note about what happens to related data or any safeguards.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'project_id' with a clear description ('The ID of the project'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage without enhancement.

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 'Delete a project permanently' clearly states the action (delete), the target resource (project), and adds the crucial qualifier 'permanently', distinguishing it from any potentially reversible delete operations. This is specific and unambiguous, and it clearly contrasts with sibling tools for other resources like delete_chore or delete_thing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions. The description is a bare statement of action without context about scenarios where deletion might be discouraged or require confirmation. There is no mention of alternatives, such as archiving, which appears among sibling tools.

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