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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already declares the write/destroy profile, so the bar is lower. 'Irreversible' reinforces rather than adds new information, and there is no mention of cascade effects (e.g., whether child nodes are also removed) or required permissions.

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?

Five words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the parenthetical caveat is placed where it will be read. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. However, for a destructive multi-entity operation it omits cascade scope and permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps for a high-impact tool.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the format example (PR-123-456-789) documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a project'), which is unambiguous against siblings like delete_node or update_project. It does not, however, differentiate scope or side effects versus those siblings, so it lands just short of a 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 prerequisite or permission hints, and no routing to alternatives such as update_project or archival flows. The agent must infer everything about when this tool is appropriate.

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