linear_removeProjectFromInitiative

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

No annotations are present, and the description only restates the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as mutability, destructiveness, or required permissions. The agent is left to assume it is a simple removal without side effects.

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 a single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. It is efficiently front-loaded and every word contributes to the purpose.

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 operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about return behavior, error handling, or preconditions, leaving gaps for the agent.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents both 'initiativeId' and 'projectId' sufficiently. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameters, so a 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 'Remove a project from an initiative' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from similar sibling tools like 'linear_addProjectToInitiative'. It leaves no ambiguity about the action performed.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'linear_addProjectToInitiative'. While the name implies the inverse operation, no contextual cues about prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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