remove_project_resource

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

The description lacks any behavioral details beyond the basic operation. With no annotations provided, it should disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or error scenarios. It only says 'Remove a single resource', omitting critical context for a deletion tool.

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?

The description is a single, short sentence that is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief to provide substantial value, which prevents a score of 5. It is not overly verbose but could benefit from more structured detail.

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?

Given that there is an output schema (not shown), the description could be shorter, but it still fails to mention return behavior, error handling, or the specific meaning of 'project resource'. The minimalism is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters and no additional context.

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 the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not supplement or clarify parameter usage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Remove', the resource 'a single resource', and the context 'from a project'. It unambiguously defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_project_resources and remove_webhook_resource.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or what distinguishes it from other removal tools (e.g., remove_webhook_resource). The description is purely functional.

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