unload_js_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the core action but does not disclose side effects such as whether unsaved state is lost, whether the operation is reversible, or whether it affects other tools. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core functionality efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but as a state-changing operation without annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not mention what happens after unloading, whether the project can be reloaded, or any impact on dependent tools. Given the sibling context of load/refresh, a bit more context would be expected.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'name' with a clear description, so the tool description does not need to add much. However, the description does not clarify the exact format expected (e.g., project name as displayed in list_loaded_projects vs a path), so it provides no added meaning beyond 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 uses the specific verb 'unloads' with the resource 'project from memory', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like load_js_project and refresh_js_project. It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like refresh_js_project or list_loaded_projects. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the project being currently loaded, or situations where unloading is appropriate.

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