all the tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates critical traits: the operation is 'highly destructive,' 'cannot be undone,' and has a specific outcome ('Returns a success confirmation upon completion'). This covers safety, irreversibility, and response expectations that annotations would normally provide.

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?

The description is appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and critical warnings. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action and scope, the second specifies the parameter and destructiveness, and the third clarifies the return value. There is zero waste or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (destructive deletion with cascading effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, behavioral risks, parameter requirement, and return value, addressing all essential aspects for safe and correct usage without relying on structured fields.

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 the schema already fully documents the single parameter (project_id as a UUID that must exist). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'Requires the project ID' but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('permanently deletes'), the resource ('a project and ALL associated tasks and dependencies'), and distinguishes it from siblings like deleteTask (which only deletes a single task) and createProject/updateTask (which are opposite operations). It goes beyond just restating the name/title.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Requires the project ID') and implicitly contrasts with siblings by specifying it deletes 'ALL associated tasks and dependencies' (unlike deleteTask). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like exportProject for backup before deletion.

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