delete_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions irreversibility but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as permissions required, cascading effects, or rate limits. For a delete operation, more details about impact on associated data would be helpful.

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 concise with two sentences and an Args block. It front-loads the key information (delete and irreversibility). The Args block is slightly verbose for a single parameter but adds clarity.

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?

The tool has one simple parameter and an output schema exists, so return values are documented. The description covers purpose, parameter, and irreversibility. For such a simple tool, it is sufficiently complete, though adding what happens to associated resources would be beneficial.

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 0%, but the description compensates by detailing the parameter in an Args block: 'project_id: The numeric ID of the project to delete.' This fully explains the parameter's purpose and type, which the schema lacks.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a Tolgee project', which clearly identifies the action (delete) and resource (project). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_keys and delete_language by specifying the resource as a project.

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 warns that the action is irreversible, implying caution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for a straightforward delete operation.

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