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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known, but the description goes further: it discloses the preview-by-default behavior, the approval gate, and precisely what is destroyed (projects, stories, relationships) versus what is merely detached (reusable assets). That distinction matters for an irreversible operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the preview behavior and followed by the action contract. No filler; the slightly non-essential clause about the deletion service is the only marginal weight.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers impact scope, the preview/confirm sequence, and the guard parameters. Nothing an agent needs to avoid an accidental destructive call is missing.

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%, so individual parameter meanings are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by tying the three safety parameters together as a single post-approval gesture, clarifying they are supplied jointly rather than independently.

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+resource (delete world) and enumerates the affected entities (projects/stories/relationships) versus detached reusable assets. This clearly separates it from siblings like delete_world_asset and delete_creator_flow_project, which target narrower resources.

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?

Prescribes an explicit two-phase workflow: preview first, obtain explicit user approval, then re-invoke with dry_run=false, confirmed=true, expected_title. The trigger condition and required ordering are stated rather than left to inference.

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