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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral context: the deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, lowers external cost, and requires explicit human confirmation. It explicitly instructs the agent never to populate confirm/confirmation_phrase on its own, which is essential for safe invocation.

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, each carrying distinct and necessary information: what is deleted, the irreversible consequence and cost impact, and the human-confirmation requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description plus input schema fully cover what an agent needs: what is deleted, the irreversible nature, the required confirmation behavior, and the identifier parameter. Nothing critical 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?

The schema already documents external_service_id, confirm, and confirmation_phrase reasonably well. The description adds important operational semantics by clarifying that confirm and confirmation_phrase must be supplied by the human, not the agent, and that the delete targets an external/subcontractor service line.

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 specific verb and resource: permanently delete an external/subcontractor service line from a project. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like projects_update_external_service or projects_create_external_service by focusing on irreversible deletion.

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 gives clear context for when this tool applies: deleting an external service line from a project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose statement is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly among the sibling delete/update/create tools.

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