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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the subscription is canceled immediately (not at end of billing period), the deletion cascades to projects, monitors, and historical data, and there is a 30-day recovery window before permanent removal. This is exactly the blast-radius detail an agent needs before invoking 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-loaded with the action, followed by immediate and delayed consequences in ascending order of severity. No filler, every sentence carries new information.

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, the description covers the action, the cascade scope, the retention window, and the permanence endpoint. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it 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?

Only one parameter (organization_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 and resource ('Delete an organization') and the scope of impact makes it unmistakably distinct from delete-project-tool, delete-monitor-tool, and the other delete siblings. No ambiguity about what entity is targeted or how far the deletion reaches.

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 conveys the gravity of the operation (immediate subscription cancellation, 30-day soft delete, permanent removal), which implicitly signals this is a last-resort action, but it never states when to use it versus update-organization-tool or any explicit preconditions/exclusions. Usage is implied by consequence rather than stated.

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