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

Goes well beyond destructiveHint=true: it explains the cascade (timeline, versions, media, cover, exports), the two-stage timing (project removed at once, stored files at the next nightly sweep), and the retention exception for media still referenced by a variant or copy. This is precisely the behavioral detail an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the destructive cascade comes first and the confirmation requirement last. The deferred-sweep clause is slightly convoluted but carries information that cannot be cut.

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 mutation with no output schema, the definition covers what is destroyed, when, what survives, and the required human confirmation — everything an agent needs to invoke it responsibly.

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 single projectId parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no meaning to it (format, where to obtain it, whether it accepts names). The parameter is fairly self-evident, so the gap is modest but real.

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 and resource ('Delete a project permanently') and immediately enumerates what the project comprises (timeline, versions, uploaded media, cover, exports), which distinguishes it from narrower siblings like delete_version, delete_bin, or delete_folder.

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 a clear precondition in 'Ask the user first', which is exactly the right guidance for a destructive operation. It stops short of naming a non-destructive alternative (e.g., delete_version, restore_version) or explaining when to remove individual assets instead of the whole project.

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