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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the deletion is irreversible and the attempt to remove the completed output may be partial ('attempts to'), which warns the agent that leftover artifacts are possible.

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 short sentences, zero waste. The irreversible consequence is front-loaded ahead of the confirmation instruction, so the most important warning lands first.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could say what a delete call returns or whether it is idempotent if the project is already gone. Still, for a one-parameter destructive tool it covers the essentials: effect, irreversibility, and user confirmation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the single 'id' parameter is already documented, including its origin from POST creation APIs. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 ('Deletes') and resource ('the video project'), plus an additional effect on its completed output. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling delete_audio_project and delete_image_project, which share the same verb but operate on different resources.

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' — which is exactly the right guidance for a destructive operation. It does not, however, point to alternatives or prerequisites such as verifying the project with get_video_project before deleting, so no exclusions are stated.

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