Delete a project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context — permanence ('deletes it for good'), the in-progress-order blocker, and a confirmation step. It omits what else is affected (associated media, orders) and any permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger, then the blocking constraint, then the confirmation behavior. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 destructive, non-open-world tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies trigger, permanence, precondition and confirmation. The remaining gap is blast radius — whether dependent data is removed — which an agent about to delete would want to know.

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 50%: requestId is fully documented in the schema, while 'id' has no description. The phrase 'one of their projects' only loosely implies that 'id' is the project identifier, so the description partially compensates for the undocumented parameter but adds no format detail.

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 ('deletes it for good' for 'one of their projects'), which plainly distinguishes it from get_project, list_projects and update_project. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 trigger ('when the user no longer wants one of their projects') plus two operating conditions: projects with an order in progress cannot be deleted, and the user is prompted to confirm. It does not point at alternatives (e.g. cancel_order) for the in-progress case, which keeps it from a 5.

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