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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description still adds value by disclosing that deletion is permanent with no trash/recovery and that geometry is cascaded, plus an ownership restriction. It does not say what happens to shared or referenced projects, but the core destructive behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the permanence warning front-loaded immediately after the action statement. Nothing to trim.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers everything needed: what is deleted (project + geometry), irreversibility, and the ownership gate.

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 100% for the single projectId parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description's 'one you created' constraint reinforces the ownership rule but adds no format or identifier detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 (permanently delete) and resource (a project plus its geometry), with scope spelled out so an agent can separate it from edit_project, organize_project, and share_project. No ambiguity about what is removed.

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?

Gives a concrete when-not rule — 'Deleting a project you did not create is not possible' — which tells the agent an ownership precondition exists. It stops short of naming alternatives such as edit_project for non-destructive changes, so it is context rather than full routing guidance.

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