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. It does disclose the key behavioral effect: the project is eliminated from the registry. Yet it omits details such as whether the operation is reversible, whether project files are also deleted, and how config_path influences the action.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple removal tool.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the absence of annotations, no output schema, and undocumented config_path leave important gaps. The description is enough to know the basic purpose but not enough to understand optional behavior or error handling.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention either parameter. The 'name' parameter is somewhat self-explanatory, but 'config_path' with a default of null is not described, leaving a significant gap.

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 a specific action ('Elimina un proyecto') and the exact resource affected ('del registro agentic.toml'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_add and remove_custom_pattern.

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 the tool should be used when a project needs to be removed from the agentic.toml registry. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with alternative removal tools.

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