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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds material context beyond them: this is a soft-delete, the project's tasks cascade, everything lands in the recycle bin, and it remains restorable for the org's data-retention window. It also states the authorization requirement (project.delete, OWNER by default), which annotations do not convey.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the action and its soft-delete nature, then the cascade/restore behavior, then the permission requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the side effects (cascade to tasks, recycle bin, retention window) and the auth prerequisite, so an agent knows both the consequence and the gate before calling. Nothing essential is missing for a single-parameter destructive tool.

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 100% and the single projectId parameter is documented in the schema itself. The description says 'one project' but adds no format, ID-source, or identifier-syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 scope: 'Soft-delete one project.' The word 'soft' distinguishes it from a hard delete and the cascade note clarifies exactly what gets affected, so an agent can separate it from archive_project or move_project without opening schemas.

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 explains the restorability window and the required permission (project.delete, OWNER by default), which is useful context for deciding whether to act. However, it never names an alternative or states when this should be chosen over siblings like archive_project or move_project, leaving the routing implicit.

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