Remove the logo or a screenshot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to re-establish the safety profile. It adds genuine context beyond them by disclosing the invariant that keeps a launched project from losing its last logo/screenshot. It stops short of saying what the response or error looks like when that invariant blocks the call.

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?

Two short sentences: the action and its accepted values come first, then the constraint. No filler, no repetition of annotation data.

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 2-parameter, non-read-only tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, accepted inputs, and the key invariant. The only real omission is failure behavior (error vs silent no-op) when the last-logo/screenshot rule is hit.

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%, and the description's parameter content ("logo" or an img_ id) merely restates what the anyOf const and pattern already encode. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 (removes) and the exact resource set: the logo literal "logo" or one screenshot by img_ id. This clearly distinguishes it from the opposite-direction siblings set_logo and add_screenshot, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 second sentence supplies the operative precondition: a launched project retains at least its logo and one screenshot, which tells the agent when this call will be refused. It gives no explicit alternative-routing guidance (e.g., use set_logo to replace rather than remove), keeping it below a 5.

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