Remove project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the side effect (removes from sidebar rail) and the important non-effect (does not delete directory). It could mention idempotency or behavior for unknown ids, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value. The parenthetical usage hint and the explicit non-destructive clarification are essential and concise.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, how to obtain the id, the effect, and a key non-effect. It could add a sentence about reversibility or errors, but the current content is arguably sufficient.

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 coverage is 0% and there is only one 'id' field with no description, so the tool description must explain it. It does: the id refers to a remembered project and can be found via list_projects. While it doesn't elaborate on format beyond the schema's string type, it provides the needed context.

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 uses a specific verb 'Forget' and names the exact resource ('a remembered project by id'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying it removes from the sidebar rail and does NOT delete the directory on disk.

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 explicitly points to list_projects for finding ids, and clarifies the tool is not for deleting the directory on disk. This gives a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use distinction.

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