remove_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the action is destructive and cascades to all project data. It does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to dependent index state, which would strengthen transparency for a destructive operation.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, and the cascade behavior without filler or redundancy. Every word adds value.

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 low-complexity tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential operation and destructive scope. The only meaningful gap is the lack of guidance for the 'path' parameter, but the overall context is sufficient for basic correct invocation.

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 schema has a single 'path' parameter with no description, and the tool description does not explain what type of path is expected or how it relates to an indexed project. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a specific resource ('indexed project') and clarifies the destructive scope ('all its data (cascade)'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling search/indexing tools.

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 intended use is implied by the verb: use this when you want to delete an indexed project. However, there is no explicit statement about when not to use it or which sibling tool might be an alternative, such as update_index for non-destructive changes.

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