Delete a linked Micro project

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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint and readOnlyHint=false, the description discloses specific consequences: immediate hiding from the runner, a 30-day slug reservation, queued protected-object cleanup, and no change to local source. These details tell an agent what to expect after calling, exactly the kind of extra value this dimension rewards. It also complements the idempotentHint=false annotation by implying a one-time permanent action.

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 entire description is one sentence that front-loads the core action and then appends four concrete consequences in a compact list. No filler or repetition of the tool title. It is appropriately sized for the destructive behavior it covers.

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?

The description covers the main behavioral consequences (immediate hid, slug reservation, cleanup queue, local source untouched), which is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke the tool. Return values are not described, but an output schema exists to cover them. It does not enumerate error conditions, but the confirm flag and 'exact locally linked' prerequisite are conveyed via schema and description.

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?

All three parameters are already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the exact source for slug and the const true confirmation requirement. The tool description does not add new parameter-level semantics, only the broad context that the project is 'locally linked' and 'local source untouched,' which indirectly relates to path. At high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opening clause 'Permanently delete the exact locally linked project' names a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like micro_project_deletions (which lists deletions) and micro_record_delete (which deletes records). The title reinforces the same resource, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 makes the use case explicit: use it to remove a linked project from the runner while preserving local source. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which keeps it from a 5. The phrase 'exact locally linked' implies it is not for unlinked or directory-defined tasks, providing reasonable guidance.

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