remove_project_fact

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

The description states it removes a fact and returns true if found, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, error behavior if the fact does not exist, or whether the operation is destructive. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and is insufficient.

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 extremely short (two sentences) and front-loads the version number, which is unnecessary. While concise, it omits critical details, making it under-specified rather than efficient.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is wholly inadequate for a tool that has two required parameters and no additional context. It fails to explain return values beyond a boolean, error handling, or prerequisites.

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 0% coverage (no descriptions for parameters), and the description does not explain what 'fact' or 'projectId' represent. The agent must guess how to format the fact value or what project identifier to use.

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 fact'), which matches the tool name and distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_project_glossary_term or remove_project_convention. The return value hint ('Returns true if found') adds precision.

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 alternative removal tools (e.g., remove_project_glossary_term) or how it fits into a workflow. The agent is left to infer from context.

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