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

The description adds meaningful behavioral information beyond the annotations by emphasizing permanence ('Permanently') and cascading scope ('and its videos'). This complements destructiveHint=true and helps an agent understand the irreversible impact, even though it does not discuss permissions or return behavior.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key facts: permanence, the deleted resource, and the cascade to videos.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what will be deleted and that the action is permanent, leaving no critical gaps for correct invocation.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter project_id, including a minLength constraint and a description. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the schema carries the burden adequately.

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 names a specific action ('Permanently delete') and a specific resource ('a project and its videos'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like vivu_delete_video and vivu_create_project. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and what its scope is without opening the schema.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you want to delete an entire project along with its videos. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the wording makes the intended use obvious relative to sibling deletion tools.

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