remove_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by naming exactly what is destroyed (collection, manifest, registry entry) and signaling irreversibility via 'DELETE ... entirely'. It omits permission/auth requirements and behavior when the project does not exist or is already removed.

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?

One tightly written sentence with the destructive action and its full blast radius front-loaded. No 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the destruction scope is covered. However, for an unannotated destructive tool the description should also address the undocumented path parameter and failure/idempotency behavior, which it does not.

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% and the description never mentions the single required 'path' parameter, so it adds no meaning about what path refers to or how it is resolved. The bare parameter name is the only clue available.

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 ('deregister') and resource (project) with an explicit scope that enumerates exactly what is torn down: Qdrant collection, manifest, and registry entry. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like add_project, list_projects, and reindex_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 destructive language implies a caution context for use, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over reindex_project or list_projects, nor any prerequisite or confirmation guidance. Usage is only implied.

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