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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: irreversibility ("Permanently delete", no archive/restore), a runtime rejection condition (busy generation projects), and the auth/ownership constraint ("owned"). It does not cover what happens to associated media or nodes on deletion.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the destructive verb plus the confirmation precondition are front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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?

Irreversibility and the busy-project failure mode are covered, which matters for a destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema. However, with 0% schema coverage the agent still lacks guidance on revision-mismatch behavior and on the purpose of request_id, gaps that matter for a permanent delete.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the project_id/confirm_project_id double-entry safeguard but leaves expected_rev (presumably an optimistic-concurrency revision) and request_id (a dedupe key, notable given idempotentHint=false) entirely undefined in both schema and description.

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 ("Permanently delete an owned Canvas project") plus the ownership scoping constraint. Among siblings like aimixer_canvas_rename, aimixer_canvas_create, and aimixer_canvas_read, this is unambiguously the destructive removal tool.

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 an explicit precondition ("only after explicitly confirming the exact project id") and a when-not condition ("Busy generation projects are rejected"). It also preempts a likely wrong path by noting archive/restore are unsupported, though it does not name a sibling tool to use instead for any adjacent operation.

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