ghl_project_delete_space

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it discloses the response shape (`{ "success": true }`, no `id`), states that cascade behavior is undocumented so nested folders/lists follow unknown product rules, and names the required OAuth scope (projects/workspace.write). Annotations already supply destructiveHint/idempotentHint, so this is a solid supplement rather than a full disclosure of irreversibility or dependent-object effects.

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?

Roughly half the text is generic project-management API preamble irrelevant to deleting a space (task batch-get RBAC filtering, lexorank `position`, recurring-task owners/contactIds, updatedAt sync). The actual purpose sentence is buried after five sentences of noise, so the definition is neither front-loaded nor waste-free.

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-output-schema delete, the definition covers endpoint, version header, auth scope, response body, and cascade uncertainty. It stops short of stating whether a space must be empty or how members are affected, but an agent has enough information to call it correctly and safely.

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 100%, and the schema already fully documents both spaceId and the locationId channel distinction. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate — the schema does the work here.

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 states a specific verb+resource — 'Deletes a space' — and the hierarchy line (spaces -> folders -> lists -> tasks) plus the DELETE endpoint path distinguish it from the many sibling delete tools (delete_space_user, delete_folder, delete_list). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against alternatives. The only directive present is a caution that 'the docs do not describe what a delete cascades to — treat every delete as destructive', which warns about risk but doesn't help select this tool over ghl_project_delete_space_user or ghl_project_delete_folder.

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