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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent, but the description explains the soft-delete nature, the idempotent behavior (same response for already-deleted/unknown/not-owned, never disclosing which case), that version rows are never physically erased, and the post-delete resolution behavior. This is rich, non-redundant transparency that fully informs the agent.

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, each carrying essential information: the action, the idempotency details, and the consequence. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, no redundancy, and no extraneous content. Well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

The description fully covers the behavioral contract for a destructive idempotent operation, including edge cases and side effects. With an output schema present and only one parameter, this is complete for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 parameter project_id is fully described in the schema as 'The project_id returned by house_specify for an authenticated (keyed) call.' The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the ownership implication in the first sentence. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 immediately states the specific action: 'Soft-delete a durable house project you own.' This matches the name and title exactly, and the ownership constraint distinguishes it from other project tools like project_get or project_list. It is unambiguous and clear.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: it's for soft-deleting a project you own, and it notes that after deletion the project cannot be resolved by project_id or house_ref. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is evident and the sibling tool list allows inference. A brief 'use project_versions to see history' would have made this a 5.

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