delete_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns 'irreversible!', which is crucial for a deletion tool and addresses reversibility. However, it does not disclose other potential behavioral aspects such as cascading deletion of associated resources, permission requirements, or what happens to dependent objects, leaving substantial context unstated.

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, short sentence that conveys the essential action and the critical warning. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded. No waste or 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 deletion tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states the core action and irreversibility, which is enough for basic usage. However, it could have briefly mentioned the impact on associated resources (e.g., services, environments) to fully set expectations, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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 already describes the only parameter (projectId: 'The project ID to delete') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 'Delete a Railway project (irreversible!)' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (Railway project), using specific verb+resource phrasing. This decisively distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_service, delete_environment, and delete_variable.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it (e.g., if you only need to delete a service or environment), provide prerequisites, or reference sibling tools. The usage context is implied only by the tool name and resource reference.

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