Remove project token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the default directory behavior and that the operation 'forgets' the token, implying a destructive/irreversible action. However, it doesn't state whether the token is removed from disk, whether it affects other projects, or whether confirmation is needed. The word 'Forget' gives some transparency but not full detail.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. It includes the default behavior and the parameter guidance without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the default directory and the action. The only gap is the lack of detail about what 'forget' means behaviorally (e.g., irreversible, scope), but given the simplicity and the parameter schema, it is adequate.

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 100% and the parameter description is already detailed, explaining the default and when to pass it explicitly. The description adds the context that the directory defaults to the current one, which aligns with the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description's explicit 'when unsure' guidance adds value, so a 4 is warranted.

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 ('Forget the stored Goby token') and the resource ('for a project directory'), with a default behavior noted. It is distinct from sibling tools like set-project-token and list-project-tokens, which are about creating/listing tokens rather than removing them.

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: when you want to remove a stored token for a project directory. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the sibling set makes the purpose clear. The parameter description adds guidance about when to pass dir explicitly ('when unsure'), which helps usage.

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