remove_project_setting

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses that unrelated config is preserved, that engine defaults may take effect, and that dryRun and expectedHash guards exist — all consequence information not encoded in annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core action and consequence front-loaded. Slightly clipped, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the destructive profile. However, for a mutation tool with four completely undocumented parameters, the description leaves the agent unable to construct a safe call — particularly how expectedHash should be sourced.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it does not. It merely name-drops 'dryRun' and 'expectedHash' without explaining semantics (e.g., that expectedHash is an optimistic-concurrency token), and the two required parameters projectPath and setting receive no explanation anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a stored project setting override') and clarifies scope with 'preserving unrelated configuration.' It is clearly distinguishable from get_project_setting and set_project_setting, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when to use it (removing an override so engine defaults apply), but gives no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to set_project_setting, which could also revert a value. The agent must infer the choice from the sibling names.

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