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

Goes well beyond the annotations' destructiveHint/idempotent flags by specifying what is destroyed, what is explicitly left intact (subscription, billing, website, Meta dataset), and residual effects (snippet/SDK persists, a loaded Pixel keeps sending until reload, in-flight Meta requests cannot be recalled). This is exactly the blast-radius detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loads the destructive action and scope before the guards and side effects, and nearly every sentence carries distinct information. It is dense, and the closing 'Requires a connected site' mildly restates the earlier connected-project framing.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the safety guards, the blast radius, and the residual side effects. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it explains that confirmed must be true and that expected_url must equal the connected project's current URL, with a no-op fallback on mismatch. It does not specify URL format or length bounds, but the guard semantics are conveyed.

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 ('Permanently deletes') plus the exact resource ('the Tyton project connected to this connection') and enumerates the scope of what is destroyed (keys, setup, event history). No sibling tool performs deletion, so the destructive action is unambiguous.

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 clear preconditions ('Requires confirmed: true and expected_url equal to the connected project's current URL; nothing is deleted if they differ') and a state requirement ('Requires a connected site'). It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use beyond the URL guard, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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