Move project to trash

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further by disclosing the side effects (services are stopped), the reversibility window (trash for three days), and the human-confirmation requirement. That is exactly the extra context 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by effect and precondition. No filler, no restating of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, and none is needed here; the description covers trigger, side effects, reversibility, and the confirmation precondition for a destructive, non-idempotent tool. Nothing an agent must know before invoking it 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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the confirm-only-after-approval rule. The description reinforces the confirmation gate but adds no new parameter syntax or format guidance (e.g. name vs. ID ambiguity handling is left to the schema), so baseline 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?

Specific verb and resource ('Delete a project'), plus the actual effect is spelled out (stops services, moves to trash for three days). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from service-level deletion, so an agent can separate it from siblings like service_delete 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?

States the trigger condition ('when its owner explicitly asks') and an explicit exclusion ('do not call this to delete only one service'), which routes the agent to the service-scoped sibling. The confirmation prerequisite is also stated as a gate rather than left to inference.

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