remove_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is destructive by using 'Remove', but it doesn't state whether the removal is permanent, what happens to associated projects/sessions, or whether confirmation is needed. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 or repetition. It earns its place by stating exactly what the tool does, though it could have added a bit more useful context without becoming bloated.

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 simple one-parameter operation, the description is minimally viable: an agent can infer to call remove_project(name='some-project') and an output schema is present to describe return values. However, it lacks critical context about side effects, irreversibility, and validation behavior, which an agent would benefit from when deciding to invoke a destructive tool.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or format of the required 'name' parameter beyond the obvious implication that it identifies the project. Since there is only one parameter and the schema provides no description, the description should have compensated by stating how 'name' maps to registry.yaml entries.

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 ('Remove') and a specific resource ('a project from registry.yaml'), which clearly distinguishes this from siblings like add_project, update_project, and reorder_projects. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with closely related sibling operations, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use remove_project versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no note about effects on related data such as sessions or dispatch history. For a destructive operation, an agent is left to infer when this tool should be selected.

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