Удалить проект

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: operations survive but lose the project reference, and subprojects are deleted along with the project. This is valuable cascade information not present in the structured metadata.

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 short sentences: the first states the core action, the second describes the consequences. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive tool with a fully documented schema, the description supplies the critical semantic details: what is deleted, what remains, and how subprojects are handled. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters, covering both 'business' and 'category' at 100%. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete action with a clear resource: 'Удаляет проект' (deletes a project). It immediately clarifies scope and side effects, distinguishing it from related tools such as categories_save.

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?

Usage is reasonably implied: this is the deletion operation for projects, and the description notes that operations referencing the project are preserved. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like categories_save or state conditions for non-use, so the agent must infer some usage guidance.

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