Remove Project From Group

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds significant context: permanent removal (cannot be undone), a repeat call returns 404, error payload details with common HTTP statuses (401/403/404), and the response format (updated list of Group IDs). This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 longer than minimal but every sentence adds value: result, prerequisites, defaults, error behavior, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slightly verbose but well-organized.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly states what a successful response contains. It specifies required parameters, defaulting behavior, error scenarios, and the exact API endpoint. This is a complete and self-sufficient description for a destructive operation.

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% (3/3 params described as URL path parameters). The description adds value by noting company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config when omitted, and that group_id must identify an existing parent record. These are practical semantics not present 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a Project from a Group.' It clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from related tools like 'add_project_to_group' and other removal tools. The endpoint and API path further clarify the exact action.

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 provides clear usage context: confirm the target id with a show/list tool before calling, resolve group_id with the matching list tool first, and notes default fallback for company_id/project_id via procore_set_config. It does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, but the prerequisites are sufficient for correct invocation.

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