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 structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful non-annotation detail (the project_risks:write scope requirement), but says nothing about what else is removed (cascade effects on risk history/associations) or whether the delete is soft or hard.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the action first, then the permission prerequisite. 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 destructive delete with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: it identifies the target and the required scope. It omits the details that matter most for a destructive operation, such as irreversibility and return behavior, leaving the agent to infer them from annotations alone.

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 description coverage, the schema already documents 'id' as a UUID 'Project risk ID'. 'By ID' in the description merely restates the schema, adding no format, sourcing, or constraint detail. 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Delete a project risk') plus the identifying key ('by ID'), so the agent knows exactly what action is taken on what entity. It does not, however, distinguish this from the closely-related get_project_risk / update_project_risk / list_project_risks siblings beyond the verb itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_project_risk or any bulk deletion path, and no note that the operation is irreversible. The only conditional information is the scope requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance.

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