ghl_project_delete_list

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 real value beyond that by disclosing the exact response shape (`{ "success": true }`, no id), the undocumented cascade, the rule that tasks homed to the list follow product delete rules, and the required OAuth scope.

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 tool-specific content (delete, response, cascade, endpoint, scope) is well ordered and front-loaded after the heading. But a large share of the text is generic project-management boilerplate about batch-get RBAC, lexorank position, recurring task fields, and task search that is irrelevant to deleting a list and dilutes the signal.

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 two-parameter destructive endpoint with no output schema, the description covers response shape, cascade uncertainty, auth scope, and the endpoint/version. The main remaining gap is whether preconditions exist (empty list, permission tier beyond scope), but it honestly flags that the docs are silent on cascade.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the subtle locationId channel rule. The description only restates the path binding `{listId}` and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 tool-specific portion states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete List' / 'Deletes a list.' It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby destructive siblings (ghl_project_delete_folder, ghl_project_delete_space, ghl_project_delete_task), though the shared hierarchy preamble implies where lists sit.

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 'treat every delete as destructive' and notes cascade behavior is undocumented, which is a caution rather than a routing rule. It never says when to delete a list versus updating it, nor what prerequisites must hold (e.g. whether the list must be empty), leaving usage implicit.

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