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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds rich behavioral detail: it specifies the full scope of deletion (chat history, workspace/capture files), notes that library media is retained, and emphasizes irreversibility. This transparency exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope, the second delivers the caution and an important exception (library media). Structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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 delete with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential information: what gets deleted, what survives, and the irreversible nature. It is complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema has one parameter (project_id) with 0% description coverage. The description implies that project_id identifies the project to delete but provides no additional format, constraints, or examples. Since the parameter is obvious from the tool name and action, this minimal context is adequate but not enriching.

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 (delete) and resource (Switch Editor project), enumerates exactly what is removed (project, chat history, workspace, capture files) and what is preserved (library media). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, get, list, or render projects.

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 instruction 'Confirm with the person first; this cannot be undone' provides a critical usage guideline for a destructive operation. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, no sibling tool performs deletion, so the use case is unambiguous. It gives clear context without needing to name exclusions.

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