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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so "cannot be undone" largely restates the structured safety profile. The description does add the ID prerequisite and the pointer to list_projects, but says nothing about side effects such as whether tasks, invoices or estimates tied to the project are removed, nor about permissions or error 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its permanence, then the prerequisite, then the warning. No sentence is 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 destructive, single-required-parameter tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers action, prerequisite and irreversibility. The one material gap is cascade behavior — an agent cannot tell from this whether deleting a project also destroys its dependent records.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces where the required id comes from, but the two optional confirmation-display parameters (name, customerName) are not explained beyond the schema's own text, so little meaning is added.

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?

"Delete a project permanently" states a specific verb, the exact resource, and the irreversible scope in one phrase. The agent can distinguish this from update_project or delete_task without opening any 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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite (the project ID) and routes the agent to list_projects when the ID is unknown, which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to delete (e.g., to rename or archive, use update_project), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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