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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the exact cascade (tasks, hours, anything added since), the conditional deletion of the sample client, what is preserved, and the confirm/preview safeguard. For a destructive tool this is rich, decision-relevant context.

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 tight sentences, each carrying unique information, with the destructive scope front-loaded before the confirm requirement. No redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description covers the action, its blast radius, what is spared, and the confirmation gate. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already fully documents the confirm flag and its preview behavior. The description restates the same confirm/preview semantics without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the 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 deletes) and a precisely scoped resource (the sample project), and clarifies the cascade to its tasks, hours, and the sample client. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like delete_project_template, delete_task, and delete_board.

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 makes the key decision criterion explicit: this only affects sample data and leaves the user's own projects and reports untouched, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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