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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive action, the default detach-but-keep behavior, the effect of delete_resources=true, and the webhook exception. This is richer and more transparent than most mutation descriptions.

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 front-loaded with the core operation, then logically expands to default behavior, the optional flag, and the exception. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant filler.

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?

Despite having no annotations, the description is complete for a delete tool: it defines destructive scope, parameter-driven behavior, and the key exception. The output schema covers return values, and the high schema coverage covers parameters, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by detailing the default resource behavior and explaining the webhook exception more fully than the schema does, particularly the ownership nuance that webhooks may belong to other projects.

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 opening sentence 'Delete a project' states a specific verb and resource, and the rest of the description expands what that operation entails (detaching vs. deleting resources). The name and title are not merely restated; the scope is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling delete_* tools.

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 context for when to use delete_project and when to set delete_resources=true, but it never names alternatives or states when to use other delete_* tools. Usage is implied by the operation name rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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