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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by naming the required permission scope (project_buildings:write), which an agent needs before attempting the call. It does not, however, say whether the underlying building is preserved or cascading effects occur.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the action and scope front-loaded ahead of the permission requirement. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 delete whose annotations already carry the safety and idempotency profile, the description covers action, target, lookup key, and required scope. The only meaningful omission is whether the building entity persists after removal from the project.

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% and the single parameter (id, uuid) is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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+resource+scope: 'Remove a building from a project by ID.' The phrase 'from a project' distinguishes it from the sibling delete_building, which presumably removes the building entity itself. It stops short of naming that alternative explicitly, so it isn't a clean 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives (e.g. delete_building or update_project_building). The agent must infer the distinction between disassociating a building from a project and deleting the building entirely.

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