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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds a valuable behavioral detail beyond that: the scripts referenced by the scenario's populations are left untouched, so destruction is scoped to the scenario only. This helps the agent understand the side-effect boundary.

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?

The description is one sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and adds the important side-effect clarification immediately, making it easy to parse.

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 simple two-parameter delete operation with destructive annotations already present, this description is largely sufficient. It names the action, scope, and the key side-effect boundary. It does not cover error behavior or irreversibility, but those are less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only provides minimal implicit semantics: 'from a project' hints that projectId identifies the project and scenarioId identifies the scenario. It does not explain ID formats, required relationships, or any validation constraints.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('a scenario'), and the scope ('from a project'). This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_dataset, delete_monitor, and delete_script by naming the specific resource type.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need to remove a scenario from a project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over the related delete_* siblings.

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