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

Annotations already mark it destructive and idempotent, but the description adds crucial details: it deletes both permanent and preview services, frees URLs, refuses non-Supero projects, explains the stopped flag meaning, warns about incomplete teardown and billing, and requires a specific admin key. This is far beyond annotation coverage and provides rich behavioral context with no contradictions.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: main action first, then scope, then idempotency, then constraints, then operational guidance, then auth. No fluff; it is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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?

The tool is destructive and has special conditions, and the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what it deletes, idempotency, scope limitation, error behavior, how to interpret the stopped return flag, and authentication requirements. With no output schema, the description fully equips an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter project_uuid. It implies the parameter by saying 'a project's live deployment' but never explicitly names it or explains its format/constraints. Since the tool has only one obvious parameter, this is adequate but not explicit, so a 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('tear down') and a clear resource ('a project's live deployment'), explicitly states it deletes Cloud Run services and frees URLs, and differentiates from build_go_live by mentioning both permanent and ephemeral apps. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings without ambiguity.

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 clearly states the scope (only Supero-hosted apps), the idempotent behavior, and the condition for re-running (stopped=false). It implies this is the teardown counterpart to build_go_live, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer them. It gives strong situational guidance but lacks explicit exclusion statements.

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