remove_project_convention

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It only mentions the return value ('Returns true if found'), but does not disclose other behavioral traits: whether it is destructive, required permissions, side effects, or what happens when the convention is not found (e.g., returns false or error). This is 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?

The description is very short and to the point, but it includes an unnecessary version number ('v2.1.0') which adds noise. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and completeness. Every sentence should add value; the version does not.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two required string parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps. It does not explain the semantics of 'convention', provide examples, or clarify behavior in edge cases. With many sibling tools, a more complete description would reduce ambiguity.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters; it does not explain what 'projectId' or 'convention' represent or their expected formats. The agent must infer from the name alone.

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') and the resource ('a single convention'). While it is unambiguous, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like remove_project_fact or remove_project_command, which share a similar pattern. The name itself provides context, but the description could be more distinguishing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., remove_project_fact, remove_project_command). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would inform selection. The description is purely functional.

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