proj_remove_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose the single most important trait for a mutation: the document is detached from the project but the underlying file survives. It also notes the return value. It does not cover reversibility, permissions, or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the critical caveat before any parameter detail, with clean Args/Returns sections. Slightly verbose for a two-parameter tool but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the action, the destructive-scope caveat, both parameters' semantics, and the response shape; an output schema exists so return details need not be expanded. Only permission/error conditions are absent.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: document_path is explained as a full path, and project_path is explained as optional with a defined fallback to the active project. That is meaningful semantics beyond the bare string types in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove a document from a project") and immediately clarifies the scope of removal versus file deletion, which separates it conceptually from destructive siblings like obj_delete or app_close_document. It does not name any sibling tool explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The note about not deleting the file implies when this tool is appropriate versus a delete operation, and the project_path arg explains the active-project fallback. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over proj_close, proj_list_documents, or other project-document tools.

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