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

Annotations already signal destructive intent, but the description adds materially more: permission requirements, the empty-deployment precondition, and the refusal behavior when projects still exist. This tells the agent what to expect beyond the binary destructive flag.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The most important constraint (EMPTY) is front-loaded, and the precondition/refusal behavior is compressed into the second sentence.

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 only one parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations that cover destructive behavior, the description covers all necessary operational context: permission, precondition, and failure mode. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this 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 100%, with the single deployment parameter fully described as 'deployment slug' in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter details, but for a single self-explanatory parameter, 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?

States a specific action ('Delete') on a specific resource ('deployment') with a critical qualifier ('EMPTY'), making its purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from related deployment operations like deployment_create and deployment_update.

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?

Provides explicit preconditions: only owner/admin, only empty deployments, and that projects must be deleted first. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, but the guidance clearly tells when not to invoke this tool directly and what to do instead.

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