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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the deletion is irreversible, the project vanishes from the editor and the API, but the public links and their statistics and leads remain live. It also states the hard confirm:true gate, which is exactly the consequence information an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the irreversible consequence, then the important caveat about surviving links, then the required flag. No filler and no repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is destroyed, what survives, irreversibility, and the confirmation requirement. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters, including the confirm const:true constraint, are already fully documented in the schema. The description only repeats the confirm requirement and adds nothing new about the id format or its origin, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Apaga o tour (projeto) da conta" states a specific verb plus resource, and the following sentences scope it precisely against the neighbouring operation: it deletes the project outright rather than unpublishing the link. An agent can distinguish it from unpublish and delete_step without opening a schema.

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 supplies a clear when-not-to-use signal by explaining that the public /p and /v links survive, which tells the agent that this is not the tool for taking a tour offline. It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling (unpublish), so routing is clear but not fully spelled out.

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