reduce_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive/mutating operation, but the description does not mention whether removal is permanent, what criteria define 'unused', how the optional parameters affect behavior, or whether this affects files on disk.

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 short sentence with no redundant wording, making it easy to read and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimally useful.

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 there are no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, a one-sentence description is far from complete. The agent cannot determine what will be removed, what parameters do, or what the result/return behavior will be.

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%, and the description does not mention 'compId' or 'compName' at all. The agent is left guessing how these parameters relate to the removal process, which is especially problematic because both parameters are optional.

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 states a clear action ('Remove') and resource ('project') with a scope ('unused items'), so an agent can broadly understand the tool's purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling project-management tools or define what counts as 'unused items'.

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 like 'delete_layer', 'organize_project_items', or 'collect_files'. There is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusionary note.

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