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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact – that removal affects only the gallery and does not take the hosted site offline – but omits permissions/ownership requirements and reversibility (whether it can be re-published).

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler; the scope statement is front-loaded and the disambiguation follows immediately.

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 single-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope and sibling disambiguation. It stops short of stating required ownership/permissions, which is the main remaining unknown for an agent about to call it.

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?

The single parameter projectId has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The name is largely self-evident and the schema enforces minLength 1, so the gap is mild, but the description adds nothing about accepted ID format or source.

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?

States a specific verb (Remove), resource (owned Codebase project), and scope (from the public gallery), which cleanly separates it from codebase_publish. The agent can identify the exact effect without opening the 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?

Explicitly names the boundary condition ('Gallery only') and routes the agent to the correct alternative ('use codebase_unpublish_site') for taking a hosted site offline. When-not and alternative are both stated.

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