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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the destructive behavior: 'Permanently delete... Irreversible.' It enumerates exactly what data is affected and states the auth requirement 'Requires the adminKey.' This exceeds expectations for a delete 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the most critical fact—permanent deletion. Each of the three sentences earns its place: scope of deletion, irreversibility, and usage guidance plus credential requirement. No wasted words.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is impressively complete. It covers what is deleted, the irreversibility, when to use it, and the required credential. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'project' and 'adminKey'. The description adds only 'Requires the adminKey.', which slightly reinforces the requirement but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'delete' and the resource 'project', and clarifies the scope with 'ALL its data (records, resources, snapshots, custom routes, webhooks, request log)'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_project and project_info by emphasizing permanent deletion of the entire project.

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 a clear use case: 'Good practice for short-lived test projects: clean up when your session is done.' It also signals caution with 'Irreversible.' Although it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this destructive tool.

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