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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description goes further by specifying exactly what is destroyed (the summary row and the schedule read path) and what is explicitly preserved (the inserted project and its tasks). It also discloses the authorization requirement ('Access: edit the parent project'), which annotations do not cover at all.

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 with zero waste: effect first, non-effect second, permission third. The most decision-relevant fact (what gets removed vs. preserved) is front-loaded before the access note.

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?

A two-parameter mutation with no output schema, and the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: the effect, the non-effect, and the permission gate. Nothing about the operation's blast radius or prerequisites 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% — projectId is 'The parent project' and insertedProjectId is 'The subproject to remove' — so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description only restates the parent/subproject relationship in prose, adding no new format, ID-type, or ordering detail. 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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a subproject from a project') and immediately scopes what is removed: 'the summary row goes, and the parent's schedule stops reading it.' It also distinguishes itself from a delete operation by noting the inserted project and its tasks are untouched, which separates it from delete_project and mirrors insert_subproject.

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?

Clear usage context: use it to detach a subproject link while keeping the inserted project intact. What is left implicit is the counter-operation naming — it never says to use insert_subproject to re-link or delete_project to actually remove data, so the agent must infer the alternatives from the sibling list.

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