timeweb_delete_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explicitly says 'Delete' and mentions the prerequisite, which gives some transparency about destructive nature. But it lacks details like whether deletion is permanent, what happens if resources still exist, or any confirmation 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?

The description is a single sentence with a parenthetical caveat, immediately conveying the core action and a key constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 delete operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema cover the essential details. The precondition about moving/deleting resources first is important and included. Could mention error behavior, but not necessary for basic use.

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 100%; both parameters (project_id and format) have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is fine because the schema already fully documents them.

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 clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (project), and includes a critical precondition (resources must be moved or deleted first). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like timeweb_create_project or timeweb_delete_server.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: when you want to delete a project, and importantly warns that resources must be moved/deleted first. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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