workflow_project_remove

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

With no annotations, the description reasonably carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the operation does not affect files on disk and only mutates the tracking list lagrange. It does not mention error behavior or reversibility, but the main side-effect boundary is well communicated.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and uses the second sentence to add an important boundary. The Args section is minimal and directly tied to the only parameter without any fluff.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's basic purpose and non-destructive nature, and the output schema likely handles return details. However, it leaves important operational context unresolved, such as how project_dir should be formatted and what happens if the project does not exist in the registry. These gaps matter because there are no annotations to supply behavioral details.

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 compensate for the parameter. The only parameter guidance is "project_dir: Project directory to remove," which essentially restates the schema title and adds no format, path-resolution, or identifier semantics. An agent cannot tell whether this should be an absolute path, relative path, or registered project key.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Remove a project from the registry." It further clarifies the exact scope by saying it "does not delete any files — just removes the project from the cross-project tracking list," which distinguishes it from file-deletion tools and other workflow 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 intended use is clear from the opening sentence and the registry/tracking-list context. The explicit caveat that it does not delete files provides a useful non-goal boundary, though it does not name alternative tools or state precise conditions for choosing this tool over a sibling.

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