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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds the crucial detail annotations cannot: exactly what is destroyed in the cascade and that the effect is irreversible. It also imposes a confirmation protocol, which is the highest-value behavioral context 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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines scope and blast radius, the second defines the safety protocol. The destructive nature is front-loaded in the first word.

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 with no output schema, the description covers impact and safety well. It omits only operational details such as how to resolve a project_id (list_projects) or what happens if the project does not exist.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains whether project_id is an opaque ID or a name, nor how to obtain it. The cascade sentence implies the parameter identifies a whole project, but that is inference rather than stated meaning.

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 ('Permanently delete a project') and enumerates the cascade scope (contacts, campaigns, broadcasts, templates, sends, settings), which lets an agent distinguish it from the many sibling delete_* tools that target single resources.

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 an explicit precondition for invocation: confirm with the user, naming the project, before calling. It does not name alternatives (e.g., update_project to modify rather than remove, or list_projects to resolve the ID), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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