codebase_context_remove

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

Without annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool is blocked during indexing, which is useful. However, it omits other traits such as whether removal is reversible, what happens if no artifacts exist, or any authentication requirements.

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 consists of two succinct sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides a critical behavioral warning. Both are essential and efficiently presented with no unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and a key constraint. However, it lacks information on return values, idempotency, or effects on other components, which would be helpful for full contextual understanding.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the projectPath parameter with its description. The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('all indexed context artifacts for a project from the vector database'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like codebase_context_index or codebase_context_search, which focus on indexing or searching.

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 explicitly notes that the tool is blocked during indexing and recommends using codebase_stop or waiting, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance. However, it does not elaborate on typical use cases for removal itself.

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