Remove Project Toolbox

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: that the default toolbox is rejected and that a confirmation path plus a destructive switch are mandatory. It does not explain the mechanics of the 'destructive switch', which the schema doesn't expose, leaving a small gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with semicolon-separated constraints and no filler. Efficient, though the density makes it slightly cryptic to parse.

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 destructive mutation with three undocumented parameters, the description covers the safety posture but omits parameter-level detail and never clarifies what the referenced 'destructive switch' is, since no such parameter appears in the schema.

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 0% across all three parameters. The description only hints at 'path confirmation' (mapping to confirm_toolbox_path) and says nothing about aprx_path or toolbox_path formats, so it does not compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('移除精确工程工具箱' / remove the project toolbox) and adds scoping constraints. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling add_project_toolbox, though the modifier '精确' is slightly ambiguous.

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?

It provides an explicit when-not condition ('拒绝默认工具箱' - rejects the default toolbox) and states the required safety preconditions (destructive switch, path confirmation). It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so it is not a full 5.

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