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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the crucial irreversible consequence ('It cannot be restored'), which the annotations do not convey; it stops short of saying whether anything attached to the plan is also removed.

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, ordered as action, consequence, guardrail. Every sentence carries distinct information and the destructive warning is front-loaded.

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, irreversibility, and the ambiguous-request fallback. The only minor gap is whether deleting a plan also discards its contents such as furniture.

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 schema already explains project_id's origin and that it must not be shown to the person. The description's contribution is limited to the provenance rule that the plan must have been named in words, which is usage guidance rather than added parameter semantics.

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 deletes one plan') and scopes it to 'one plan from the person's account', which separates it from rename_project and edit_project, which modify rather than remove.

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 (call only for a plan the person named in words), an explicit exclusion ('delete my plans' with no named plan), and the alternative to use instead (list_projects, then show titles and ask). The agent has no inference left to do.

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