remove_project_glossary_term

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Returns true if found,' leaving ambiguity about what happens on failure (e.g., false or error?), destructive side effects, idempotency, or permission requirements. A deletion tool requires more transparency.

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 gets to the point. The version prefix 'v2.1.0 —' is unnecessary noise, but the core sentence is clear and efficient. Could be improved by removing the version.

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 deletion tool with two required parameters and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain error scenarios, side effects, or whether the operation is reversible. Given the simplicity, more context would be expected for safe invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameters. It mentions 'by term' but does not define 'term' or 'projectId.' The schema shows two required strings, but the description adds no meaning beyond the raw field names.

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 resource ('glossary entry'), and specifies the return value ('true if found'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like remove_project_fact or remove_project_convention, which are similar in nature.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., append_project_glossary_term for adding, or remove_project_fact for facts). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for appropriate use.

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