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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real beyond-schema context: the item vanishes from all lists and routes immediately, is recoverable only within a retention window, and published output stops being editable. It omits how long the retention window is, but the behavioral picture is otherwise strong.

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: what it does, its immediate effect and recovery path, then the caution. Front-loaded, 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 destructive single-parameter tool, the definition covers effect, reversibility, and the confirmation requirement, and annotations carry the safety hints. The main omission is the retention window duration, which affects how urgent restore is.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already documents 'id' as a project UUID sourced from list_projects. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Move a project to the trash') and immediately distinguishes the operation from restore_project, which reverses it. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like archive_project or unpublish_project without opening any schema.

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 a clear precondition ('Confirm with the user first') and names the recovery path ('restore_project brings it back during the retention window'). It does not explicitly contrast with archive_project, so the boundary between trashing and archiving is left implicit.

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