Remove item from portfolio

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

The description discloses an important behavioral side effect ('drops any portfolio-level custom field values'), which is helpful since no annotations are provided. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like required permissions, irreversibility, or error conditions.

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 only two sentences, both informative and without any superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then adds the key side effect.

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 removal tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the action, resource, and a notable side effect. It could be improved by specifying what happens on failure, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The tool description does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no hints about validation or defaults). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a project from a portfolio') and the specific resource being acted upon. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like 'portfolio_add_item' by using opposite verb and mentioning side effects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use it, or how it differs from other removal or update operations). The description assumes the agent knows the context without explaining trade-offs or prerequisites.

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