remove

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

The description discloses an important behavioral requirement: confirmation (confirm=true) or a dry run (dry_run) is needed, which alerts the agent to the destructive nature of the tool. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to mention other side effects such as whether delete_branch removes a branch, whether removal is reversible, or what happens to linked resources.

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 concise—one sentence for purpose and one for the requirement—making it easy to scan. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the phrasing 'Exige confirm=true (ou dry_run)' is somewhat cryptic and could be more explicit about the conditional behavior.

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 destructive tool with 6 parameters and no annotations or schema descriptions, this description is far from complete. It lacks details on key options like delete_branch and product_root, does not explain the effects of removal, and provides no information about return values despite having an output schema. The agent would be unable to use this tool safely and correctly based on the description alone.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining parameters. It only hints at 'project' and 'task' through the main action, leaving confirm, dry_run, product_root, and delete_branch completely unexplained. This is a severe gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 identifies the verb (remove) and the two target resources: a project from a task or the entire task. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like prune, though it does not precisely define the semantics of 'removing a project from a task' (e.g., unlinking vs deleting).

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 only usage guidance is the requirement to set confirm=true or dry_run, which is a safety prerequisite rather than guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided, leaving the decision context unclear.

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