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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'Permanently delete' aligns with that. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: issues survive but lose their project link. This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention irreversibility explicitly, but 'permanently' covers that.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The key behavioral fact ('permanently delete') is front-loaded, and the alternative is stated concisely.

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 destructive tool with annotations covering the destructive nature, the description is nearly complete. It explains the consequence for issues and routes to the preferred alternative. It could mention that deletion is irreversible, but 'permanently' implies that.

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 the schema already documents the 'project' parameter. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a project'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling archive_project. It also clarifies the consequence for issues, which is a key differentiator.

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 says 'Prefer archive_project', which tells the agent when not to use this tool and points to the alternative. This is clear usage guidance.

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