disconnect_project_source

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it removes both the binding and its receipt, requires confirm:true to write, defaults to a dry-run report, and explicitly scopes the blast radius to the single project. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the output schema's contents, but the output schema exists and the description covers the key behavioral traits.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, the inverse relationship is stated, usage conditions are given, and safety scope is clarified. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive mutation tool, the description covers the action, the prerequisite (confirm:true), the dry-run behavior, the scope limitation, and the non-effect on ontology markdown. The output schema exists, so return values don't need to be described. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the crucial semantic that confirm:true is required to write and defaults to listing what would be removed, which enriches the confirm parameter's meaning. However, it doesn't add much beyond that, so a baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Remove'), a specific resource ('a project node's local source binding and its receipt'), and explicitly names its inverse sibling (connect_project_source). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_concept or remove_relation, and the 'reversal of connect_project_source' framing makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use it when the wrong folder was bound, or to stop measuring.' It also explains the safety behavior without confirm:true, and states what is never touched ('Other projects' bindings are never touched, and no ontology markdown changes'). This is strong usage guidance that an agent can act on directly.

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