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

While annotations already include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds critical behavioral context: cascading deletion of all tasks and irreversibility. This goes beyond the annotations to warn about the full impact and necessary user confirmation.

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 compact and front-loaded: it identifies the action, the cascading effect, and the irreversibility in just two sentences. Every sentence carries important information without redundancy.

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 simple, single-parameter destructive tool, this description is fully sufficient. It covers what is deleted, the cascading behavior, irreversibility, and the required confirmation step. No output schema is needed since the operation is straightforward and the destructive annotation is present.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter, projectId, and its source (list_standalone_projects). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('standalone project'), making the operation unambiguous. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like delete_standalone_task or delete_standalone_attachment by naming the exact target entity.

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 provides a clear usage context: the tool is for deleting a standalone project appear and includes an explicit instruction to confirm with the user unless already requested. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the destructive action and confirmation requirement guide appropriate use.

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