project_remove_process

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behavioral traits: the multi-match refusal and that removed blocks are returned. It still omits whether deletion is permanent/reversible, any permission or file requirements, and the failure mode when nothing matches.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core action (remove blocks) before the addressing modes and the all_matches guardrail. No filler, though the final 'Returns the removed blocks' overlaps with the existing output schema.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the return value need not be re-explained, and the description handles the central matching/ambiguity logic well. For a 9-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, though, leaving the required parameters_file and the stage/section parameters undocumented is a meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain process_list, index, python_module, model_part_name, variable_name and all_matches. But it leaves four parameters (stage, section, and notably the required parameters_file) completely unexplained, so it only partially covers the 9-param surface and does not clarify which addressing form is mutually exclusive.

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 (Remove) and resource (process blocks), and goes further by describing the two addressing modes (process_list + index vs. matching python_module / model_part_name / variable_name). It is clearly distinguishable from project_add_process, project_update_process, and project_list_processes by the verb and resource, but it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings.

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 usage by explaining how to address blocks and that ambiguous matches are refused unless all_matches=true, which is a useful selection rule. However, it never states when an agent should use this tool versus project_update_process or project_list_processes, nor any prerequisite (e.g. needing to resolve matches first).

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