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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information beyond the annotations: the deletion cascades to the person's assignments, which is the single most important side effect for an agent to weigh. It stops short of stating permanence or 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the consequence of calling it. Every word earns its place.

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, no-output schema tool the description covers the core consequence, but it omits irreversibility/undo options and any mention of the cross-project targeting behavior of expectedProjectId (left entirely to the schema). Adequate but with clear gaps for a 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameter descriptions are detailed, including the refusal semantics of expectedProjectId. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a person') and adds the cascade scope ('and all their assignments'), so an agent knows exactly what is removed. It does not differentiate itself from near siblings like delete_entity, unassign_person, or update_person, which is the only thing keeping it below a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent trying to merely remove someone from a task would have no signal to prefer unassign_person over this irreversible delete, which is exactly the distinction that matters here.

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