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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds substantial context beyond that: monitors stop immediately, the project and its historical data are soft-deleted, retained for 30 days, then permanently removed. This clearly discloses what is destroyed and the data lifecycle.

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 sentences with zero waste: the command is front-loaded, followed by immediate consequence, then retention and permanent deletion details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one fully documented parameter, annotations already cover the safety profile, and no output schema is needed. The description supplies the key behavioral details an agent needs, including cascading effects and retention period.

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% and the single project_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Delete a project" states a specific verb and resource, and the third sentence clarifies scope by saying the project and everything beneath it is affected. This distinguishes it from delete tools for sub-resources like monitors or tags, even without naming 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?

The description explains consequences but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as update-project-tool or list-projects-tool. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Delete'.

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