hard_delete_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that destruction is permanent and unrecoverable, enumerates every category of data destroyed including the on-disk archive directory, and specifies the required confirmation string. It stops short of stating authorization prerequisites or any rate/audit behavior.

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?

Front-loads the destructive scope in the first clause and never buries the key constraint. The long enumeration of destroyed entities is justified because each item scopes the blast radius, though the sentence runs long and could be trimmed slightly.

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 high-risk mutation with no annotations, the description supplies what an agent most needs: irreversibility, blast radius, and the confirmation contract. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, though the unstated role of registration_token is a minor remaining gap.

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 must compensate. It fully explains the 'confirmation' parameter (must be exactly 'I UNDERSTAND'), but leaves 'project_key' and the optional 'registration_token' (default null) unexplained — the latter is entirely opaque and its relationship to the operation is never stated.

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?

Opening words give a specific destructive verb ('IRREVERSIBLY delete') plus the exact resource ('a project and ALL associated data'), and the enumerated cascade list makes clear it is broader than archive_project or hard_delete_agent. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling 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 draws a clear contrast with soft-delete ('This is NOT soft-delete'), which implicitly routes the agent to archive_project for reversible removal. It does not, however, name that sibling or state the exact conditions under which permanent deletion is appropriate, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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