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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the description's job is to add consequence detail, and it does: the project disappears from the list and its public page goes offline, and in-flight renders block deletion. It does not explicitly say the deletion is permanent/unrecoverable, which is the one behavior an agent still has to infer from the destructive hint.

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, front-loaded with the action and consequence, then the constraint, then the safety instruction. No filler and nothing redundant with the annotations.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description covers effect, precondition, and confirmation requirement. The only gap is failure behavior when the precondition is violated (what error/state the agent should expect).

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 single parameter pid is fully documented in the schema as "Existing Revid project id." The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance (e.g. obtain from list_projects), so it neither helps nor harms beyond the schema baseline.

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?

"Delete a Revid project" names a specific verb and resource and immediately states the observable effect (leaves the project list, public page offline), which separates it from siblings like edit_project, rename_project, and duplicate_project. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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 gives a concrete precondition ("A project still generating cannot be deleted") and an interaction rule ("Confirm with the user first"), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives, e.g. that a still-rendering project must be cancelled or awaited first, or pointing to cancel_episode.

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