df_rule_project_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the removal behavior but does not mention that the action is destructive, irreversible, or restricted by permissions, nor what happens if the rule is in use. The added distinction between project rules and global overrides is helpful but insufficient for a deletion 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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and then clarifies the two supported scopes. There is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool without an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks explicit guidance on how this tool relates to sibling tools like df_rule_delete or df_rule_project_add, and it omits any note about destructive effects, which leaves some contextual ambiguity for an agent.

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 100%, with 'name' documented as 'Nombre de la regla a eliminar'. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies: the schema already handles the semantics.

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 ('Eliminar') and the target ('regla propia del proyecto actual' or 'override de regla global'), which is more specific than the tool name alone. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling df_rule_delete, but the project-scoped vs. global-scoped distinction adds useful clarity.

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 implies when to use the tool: when removing a project-specific rule or removing a global-rule override in the current project. However, it does not explicitly contrast with df_rule_delete or df_rule_project_add, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between deleting a rule and removing an override.

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