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

The description discloses exactly what will be destroyed (GitHub repo, K8s deployments, database), adding valuable behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It doesn't mention irreversibility or confirmation, but the annotation already signals destructive intent, so the description sufficiently supplements it.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with a parenthetical clarifying the scope. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the destructive nature, the description is sufficiently complete. It lists the key affected resources, which is critical context for a deletion tool. A minor gap is the lack of explicit 'irreversible' warning, but annotations already convey destructiveness.

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?

The single parameter project_id is fully described in the schema ('Project ID (UUID)'), and the description adds no additional semantic value for parameters. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete a project') and specifies the exact resources affected (GitHub repo, K8s deployments, database), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_graph_project. This is a specific verb+resource combination with clear 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?

The description implies usage context (full project deletion) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or when not to use it. It lacks direct referral to sibling tools like delete_graph_project for graph-only deletions.

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