remove_project

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the destructive action ('Deletes all indexed chunks') and the config preservation side effect, and also mentions the return value ('Confirmation of removal with chunk count deleted'). This provides strong transparency about what the tool does and its outcomes.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear first sentence with the action, followed by bullet-like details for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter), the description is complete. It covers the action, side effects, config preservation, and return format. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) reduces the need to detail return values, but the description still mentions the confirmation and chunk count. No significant gaps remain.

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?

The input schema provides minimal info (a required 'name' string), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining the parameter's meaning ('Project name to remove') and providing a concrete example ('my_device_logs'). This is helpful, though it could be even more detailed about name formats or constraints.

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 tool's purpose: 'Remove a project from the RAG index' and elaborates with specific effects ('Deletes all indexed chunks', 'marks the project as removed in config.yaml'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_file_from_index, which targets a single file rather than an entire project.

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 indicates when to use the tool (when a project should be removed from the RAG index) and mentions preserving configuration for future re-add, which implies a benefit. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as clear_project_index or remove_file_from_index, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternative selection.

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