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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds substantial context on top: the exact blast radius (containers, images, volumes, records), irreversibility, and the guard behavior that returns a confirmation requirement instead of deleting. This is precisely the information an agent needs to avoid accidental data loss.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive verb and scope, followed by irreversibility and the confirmation guard. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers impact, irreversibility, and the failure mode. It stops short of describing what a successful response returns or whether dependent resources (e.g., domains, access grants) are also cleared.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining that `confirm` must equal the project's exact slug and that omitting it produces no deletion plus a returned confirmation requirement. That adds real semantics beyond the schema's brief 'to confirm permanent deletion' note.

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 ('PERMANENTLY delete a DenkOps deployment') and enumerates the scope of what is removed (containers, images, volume, records). This clearly separates it from non-destructive siblings like stop_project or redeploy.

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 makes the usage condition explicit: deletion only occurs when `confirm` matches the project's exact slug, otherwise nothing happens. It does not, however, name the reversible alternative (stop_project) an agent should prefer when a temporary halt is intended.

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