atelierb_remove_project

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

The description discloses the critical destructive behavior: setting delete_files=true permanently deletes all project files. With no annotations, this warning is essential and effectively signals irreversible consequences. However, it does not explicitly state the non-destructive behavior when delete_files=false.

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 short sentences with immediate purpose and a clear warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple deletion tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus warning covers the key behavior adequately. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention that delete_files=false only unregisters, but the schema compensates. Overall, sufficiently complete.

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%, so both parameters are well-documented. The description's warning about delete_files adds emphasis but no new semantic information beyond the schema's existing description. Baseline score 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('Atelier B project'), and the warning about delete_files provides additional specificity. It is distinct from sibling tools like atelierb_remove_component, which targets a different resource type.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., remove_component). The warning is informative but does not provide context for tool selection, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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