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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and readOnly=false, and the description goes well beyond by disclosing exactly what is destroyed vs. preserved (history kept but unlinked, username retired for good), irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'), auth requirement ('needs a Proof account'), and the 2FA gate with concrete parameters. This is the level of behavioral detail an agent needs before invoking an irreversible mutation.

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 core action and its effects, then layers the preconditions and auth flow in a logical order. Dense but every sentence carries operational weight. The ACCESS paragraph is slightly verbose but necessary given the auth complexity.

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 single-parameter, irreversible mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, what is preserved, the last-project/primary constraint, the empty-project-only restriction under API-key auth, the 2FA requirement with exact call parameters, irretrievability, and the response hint ('the response names it'). Nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value by tying profile_id to the 2FA action targets ('targets [this project id]'), clarifying the parameter's role in the auth flow. Only the bare schema field name 'Profile ID' is otherwise undocumented, but the description compensates adequately.

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 (delete) and resource (project/profile), then enumerates precisely what deletion entails: revoking API keys, archiving HITL setups, declining pending requests, unlinking history, deleting templates, retiring the username. Distinguishes itself from update_profile/create_profile and other delete_* siblings through the profile scope.

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?

Explicitly covers when it can and cannot be used: last project cannot be deleted, primary deletion reassigns primary to oldest remaining, and with an API key only an EMPTY project can be deleted (otherwise owner_session_required). Names the required start_2fa_for_action call with exact action_type and targets. This is a textbook when/when-not/precondition specification.

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