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

Beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations, the description discloses what gets destroyed (project plus geometry), that deletion is permanent, that there is no trash/recovery, and that ownership is required. This is exactly the behavioral context that matters for a destructive tool.

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 short sentences front-load the action and consequence with no filler. Every sentence adds information relevant to invoking the tool safely.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the combination of schema, annotations, and description fully covers what the tool does, what it requires, what is destroyed, and the irreversibility. No output schema is needed for this action.

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%, and the projectId property description already states it must be a project the caller created. The tool description reinforces ownership but does not add syntax, format, or meaning beyond the 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?

The description states a clear verb ('permanently delete'), resource ('one of your projects'), and scope ('and its geometry'), and adds the unique consequence of being irreversible with no trash. This separates it from update/edit/remix siblings.

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?

It implies the tool is for deleting a project the caller created, and explicitly says deleting a project the caller did not create is not possible. It does not name alternative tools for non-owned or reversible actions, but the ownership condition is a clear usage constraint.

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