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 the non-obvious authorization requirement (project_risks:write scope), which is genuine context beyond the annotations. It stops short of stating irreversibility 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action and lookup key front-loaded and the prerequisite second. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description plus annotations plus 100% schema coverage give an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly. Missing only edge-case detail (e.g., behavior when the risk is referenced elsewhere), which is minor.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema (UUID format with pattern), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by ID' adds only marginal value, matching the baseline 3.

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 risk') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the many sibling delete_* tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_project or update_project_risk, so it stays at 4 rather than 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?

The description states the required scope ('project_risks:write'), which is a useful precondition, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or pointer to sibling delete/update tools. Usage is implied by the verb, so a 3 is appropriate.

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