Fjern synlighet fra et prosjekt

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely non-derived context: the atom itself is not deleted and persists where it originated. That clarifies the blast radius of the mutation beyond what the schema fields or annotations convey.

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 zero waste: the action is front-loaded and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying the non-destructive scope. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters, idempotent/destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential effect and non-deletion semantics. It could do slightly more by noting how to reverse the action via tua_link, which is the only real gap.

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 (atom id, project) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or constraint information beyond the field-level descriptions, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: removing the reference so an atom is no longer visible in a project. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling tua_link (its inverse), though it never names the sibling explicitly, so differentiation must be inferred.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can read that this hides an atom in a project, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, no note about re-linking via tua_link, and no preconditions.

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