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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent, but the description adds real beyond-schema context: it DELETEs managed Cloud Run services, frees their URLs, returns stopped=true when nothing is deployed, refuses non-Supero-hosted apps, and requires a domain- or project-admin API key. It also explains the consequence of stopped=false (app may still be serving and billing).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, and every sentence carries distinct information (idempotency, refusal case, stopped-field guidance, auth). The dense em-dash chaining and caps emphasis make it slightly harder to scan than ideal.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the key return field (stopped) and how to interpret it, plus permission requirements and edge cases. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% for the single project_uuid parameter, which already documents its origin (build_list_projects or build_create_project). The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (tear down) and resource (a project's live deployment), and explicitly scopes it to BOTH the permanent (build_go_live) app and the ephemeral preview, naming a sibling. An agent can distinguish it from build_go_live or build_deploy 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?

Explicitly states the condition for use (removing deployments), the alternative it is NOT (build_go_live), and a refusal case (projects deployed to your own AWS/GCP are refused, not silently reported stopped). It also tells the agent to re-run rather than report success when stopped=false.

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