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

Even though destructiveHint=true already flags the destructive nature, the description adds substantial context beyond annotations: the cascade-delete branch, the rejection failure mode with goals count, and the exact return payload (deleted title, slug, goals_deleted count). This is precisely the behavioral detail an agent needs to predict outcomes.

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 tightly structured sentences: purpose first, then the force conditional behavior, then the return values. No filler; every sentence carries unique information and the ordering front-loads the most important facts.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary flow, the guard condition, and the return values — the last being essential since no output schema exists. Minor gaps remain: behavior on non-existent projects and repeated calls (relevant given idempotentHint=true), but nothing that would mislead an agent on the main path.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces force's role and adds one useful detail beyond the schema — the rejection return includes the goals count — but mostly restates what the schema's Russian descriptions already convey. Modest value added, slightly above 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?

The description opens with 'Delete a project' — a specific verb and resource — and then layers on the distinctive goal-cascade behavior. This makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like goal-delete and account-delete, which operate on different resources.

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 provides clear conditional usage: pass force=true when goals exist to cascade, and warns that without force the call is rejected with the goals count. This effectively teaches the agent when to set force. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, which is the only thing holding it back from a 5.

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