project_remove_part

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that unused copies are deleted, that pinned files survive unless delete_pinned is set, and that the central store is left untouched. It stops short of stating irreversibility or permission requirements, which would matter 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 core action and its scope come first, with the exception and the alternative following in logical order. Every sentence carries information, though the line-broken formatting makes it read less cleanly than it could.

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, yet the description still briefly notes what is returned (removed part, deleted and kept files), which is helpful rather than redundant. Combined with the delete scope and pinned rules, an agent has enough to invoke this safely; only explicit irreversibility or permission guidance is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining the 'pinned' concept that delete_pinned depends on and by framing it as an exception to default behavior. It does not touch mpn, path, dry_run, or manufacturer, which the schema already handles.

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 and resource ('Remove a part from the user project') plus the cascading scope ('delete its copies that no other part uses'). This clearly separates it from project_add_part and project_update_part without needing the schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes MPN changes to project_update_part, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face among the project_* siblings. It gives no explicit exclusion conditions for deletion itself, but the alternative is named and the pinned-file exception is stated.

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