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

Although annotations already declare destructiveHint/idempotentHint, the description adds substantive context: the owner-only permission requirement, the dry-run behavior of omitting confirm (returns affected projects), and the consequence that projects are left unlabeled rather than deleted. That is exactly the beyond-annotation detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Four short clauses, each doing work: scope, permission, no-confirm behavior, confirm behavior. The safety-critical constraint (no confirm = no deletion) is front and center.

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 2-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers authorization, dry-run behavior, and post-deletion state of related projects — everything needed to invoke it safely and correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden; it fully explains the semantics of 'confirm' (preview vs. actual deletion). The 'id' parameter is only implicitly identified as the project label's id, which is the remaining gap.

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 ('Borra') plus resource ('etiqueta de PROYECTO') and explicitly disambiguates from the near-miss sibling concept ('no una label de issues'). An agent can distinguish it from delete_label/list_project_labels without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly says when it acts and when it doesn't: without confirm=true nothing is deleted, only previewed. It also states the authorization precondition ('Solo el dueño del workspace'). It stops short of pointing at an explicit alternative tool, but the guidance for use is unambiguous.

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