Remove Project

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

Description claims 'permanently deleting' but schema states 'confirm' deletes recoverable for 30 days. This contradiction is misleading. Other behavioral details (side effects on tags, run history) are good, but the core inconsistency hurts reliability.

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?

Five efficient sentences covering function, interaction flow, and side effects. No wasted words. Well-structured for agent consumption.

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?

Covers core behavior, interaction steps, side effects, and recoverability (despite contradiction). Lacks return value description, which is noticeable given no output schema. Otherwise thorough.

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 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds context about mode being deprecated and the interactive usage, but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond 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?

Clear verb and resource: 'Remove a project by archiving or permanently deleting.' Distinguishes between two modes and the interactive flow. Sets clear expectations for this specific remove tool among many siblings.

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?

Describes when to use (for removing a project) and the two-step process (first call returns conflict, then pass mode). Does not explicitly contrast with sibling remove tools but context makes it clear. Minor omission of when-not scenarios.

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