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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds genuinely new behavioral information: the cascade effect on documents (project_id set to null). It stops short of stating whether the deletion is recoverable given kb_projects_restore exists, and says nothing about auth/permission 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the primary action is front-loaded and the side effect follows immediately.

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 tool with full schema coverage, annotations carrying the safety profile, and an output schema present, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: the downstream effect on assigned documents. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so both the 'slug' and the conditional 'tenant_slug' are already documented in the schema, including the multi-workspace rule. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a project') that an agent can act on immediately. It does not differentiate from sibling kb_projects_archive, which is the obvious adjacent operation an agent must choose between.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb: call this when a project should be removed. However, no alternative is named despite kb_projects_archive and kb_projects_restore existing, and there is no statement about when hard deletion is appropriate versus archiving.

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