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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and non-readOnly, but the description goes beyond them by detailing the blast radius (chat history for every brain, workspace and capture files, shared-file reference counting) and the explicit exception (library media stays). It doesn't cover auth requirements or response, but the disposal semantics are well disclosed.

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 dense sentence enumerating deletion scope plus a short confirmation warning; nothing redundant and the irreversible warning is front-loaded at the end where it lands.

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 one-param tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description completes the picture by explaining exactly what is destroyed and what is preserved. No output schema exists, but a delete returns little; minor gap is no mention of error behavior for missing projects.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already explains project_id comes from list_editor_projects. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so 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 (permanently delete) and resource (a Switch Editor project) and enumerates exactly what is removed: project, chat history, workspace/capture files, and uniquely-referenced uploads. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_voice or export_editor_project.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Confirm with the person first') and notes irreversibility, which is real usage context. It doesn't name alternatives such as archiving or exporting before deletion, but the guidance is clear enough to act on.

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