Delete Project Role

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the permanence ('Permanently removes', 'cannot be undone'), idempotency behavior ('a repeat call returns 404'), and error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). These details add significant value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) and do not contradict them.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds prerequisites, permanence, error handling, and required parameters in a compact sequence. Every sentence contributes useful information, and it does not inflate length with generic boilerplate. It is informative yet 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 destructive delete with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, prerequisites, irreversibility, idempotency, error conditions, required parameters, and the API endpoint. It is sufficiently complete to guide an agent on preparation, execution, and expected failures—no major gaps remain.

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% with descriptive parameter comments. The description adds value by emphasizing that the id must resolve to an existing record and should be confirmed via a list/show tool. This helps the agent understand the id's semantic requirement beyond the schema's basic 'iD of the Project Role'.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('a relationship between a User and a Role in a specified Project'), which exactly matches the tool name. It also includes the endpoint (DELETE /rest/v1.0/project_roles/{id}) and distinguishes from sibling delete_company_role by specifying 'Project'.

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 description gives explicit prerequipment guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This tells the agent when it is appropriate to call the tool (only after resolving a valid id). It does not explicitly name alternatives for creation or updates, but the context is sufficient for a covered workflow.

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