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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, implying a destructive write operation. The description states that the platform has no stop and that this tool refuses, meaning no destructive action occurs. That directly contradicts the destructiveHint annotation.

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 with the critical warning front-loaded: stop project, not implemented, refuses, use delete_project. The additional delete_domain distinction is also useful 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?

For a deliberately non-functional tool, the description is sufficient to prevent misuse and redirect to alternatives. However, it omits any explanation of the required parameters and leaves the destructiveHint contradiction unreconciled, so it is not fully complete.

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%, and the description never explains project_id or idempotency_key. For a two-parameter tool with no schema documentation, the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

It states a specific verb and resource (stop the project) and immediately clarifies that the tool is NOT IMPLEMENTED and refuses. It also names the correct siblings to use instead, so an agent can distinguish it from delete_project and delete_domain.

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 explicitly tells the agent not to use this tool, and gives alternatives: delete_project for taking an application out of service, and delete_domain for removing only a web address. This is clear when-not-to-use and when-to-use-an-alternative guidance.

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