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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that risks have no recycle bin, deletion is irreversible, and the record that the risk was ever raised is removed. It also mandates explicit human confirmation, which is critical safety context for an agent.

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?

The description is concise and well structured: it leads with the irreversible nature, then provides the safer alternative, and closes with the human-confirmation rule. Every sentence contributes essential information without repetition.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers the key context an agent needs: what happens on deletion, what not to do, and the preferred alternative. It is complete for safe and correct invocation.

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 67%, and the schema already documents confirm and confirmation_phrase semantics. The description reinforces that confirmation fields must be human-supplied, but it adds little new parameter-level detail beyond that guidance.

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 clearly states the action: 'PERMANENTLY delete a project risk' and specifies the resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling projects_update_risk by explaining this is for permanent removal, not retiring a risk.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative: use projects_update_risk with status 'Closed' to retire a risk while preserving history. It also instructs not to populate confirmation fields without human input, providing clear invocation constraints.

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