uselink_remove_project_from_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It states the primary effect but omits important behavioral details: whether the operation is reversible, what happens to workspace-specific permissions or shared links, and any authorization requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and outcome. No unnecessary words or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the main effect and destination but lacks context about consequences (e.g., whether shared links break, if workspace-specific metadata is lost). It's adequate for the basic operation but misses potential side effects that an agent might need to anticipate.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it never mentions project_id or explains that it identifies the project to remove. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no explicit semantic link between the operation and the parameter, making it less helpful than it could be.

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 clearly states the action 'Remove a project from its workspace' and the outcome 'return it to the user's personal projects'. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from related tools like uselink_move_project_to_workspace, which presumably moves a project into a workspace.

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 context: use this when you need to remove a project from a workspace and send it to personal projects. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool uselink_move_project_to_workspace implies the opposite scenario. No exclusions are mentioned, so it's clear enough for straightforward usage.

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