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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description meaningfully extends this: runtime resources are irreversibly cleaned up, the project vanishes from the user-space list as soon as the request is accepted (implying async acceptance), and saved passwords/keys plus any workspace database are explicitly preserved. That distinction between what is destroyed and what survives is exactly the context a mutation tool needs.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then layering destruction scope and preserved resources. The opening sentence merely echoes the title, but the remaining content is dense and earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting on lifecycle and side effects, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter mutation, lacking only any word on the idempotency key and permission requirements.

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% for two parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions project_id or, more importantly, idempotency_key. Given the annotations claim idempotentHint=true, the absence of any explanation of how to supply an idempotency key is a real gap.

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 the project'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling delete_domain, delete_env_name, and delete_service tools by noun alone. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 explains consequences but never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor states prerequisites (e.g. stopping the project first, required permissions, or that no confirmation is needed). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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