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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates precisely what is destroyed vs. kept (dataKept), states irreversibility, names a refusal precondition (live ad campaign), and mandates a user confirmation gate keyed to confirmName. That is far more than the structured hints 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?

Front-loaded with the destructive scope in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct operational content (kept resources, ordering, refusal condition, confirmation rule, docs link). It is dense and somewhat run-on, but no sentence is filler.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: destruction scope, preservation semantics, required pre-steps and their tool names, refusal condition, and the confirmation protocol before invocation.

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 50% — confirmName is documented in the schema, projectId is not. The description compensates by explaining the confirmation contract ('confirmName = that name') and that it must be the exact, user-confirmed project name, which adds meaning beyond the schema's own text.

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 resource ('Delete a project') and immediately scopes it ('for good — irreversible'), plus enumerates exactly which resources go with it (servers, volumes, hosting, email domain). This clearly separates it from adjacent siblings like lavela.destroy_compute, lavela.destroy_resource, or lavela.list_resources, which are named explicitly.

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 when-to-use and when-not: refused while an ad campaign is live, and managed databases/caches/storage are KEPT unless deleted first via lavela.list_resources → lavela.destroy_resource. It also prescribes the interaction protocol (show the exact project name and what gets deleted, call only after the user confirms) and points to how to unlock the advanced tool.

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