Delete project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the operation is irreversible, deletes all project data, and cleans up containers, networks, volumes, and images. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences: the core action first, the irreversible destruction warning second, and the usage guidance last. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 operation with a fully described schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides all necessary context: what gets deleted, the irreversibility, and when to use the tool. No output schema is needed for such a straightforward delete operation.

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 covers both parameters completely: projectName has a format constraint and virtualMachineId has a clear description. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('removes'), a clear resource ('Docker Compose project'), and the exact scope: stopping all containers and cleaning up networks, volumes, and images. This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like VPS_stopProjectV1 or VPS_deleteFirewallV1, even without naming them.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this when you want to permanently remove a project and free up system resources.' It does not name non-destructive alternatives or give exclusion criteria, but the wording makes the distinction from stopping or restarting obvious.

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