remove_project_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool removes a project, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether the removal is reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It's efficient with no wasted words, though the formatting as a docstring could be slightly more streamlined for an agent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like error conditions, side effects, or return value details beyond 'Success message', leaving the agent under-informed.

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 description adds minimal semantics by naming the parameter ('name') and indicating it's a 'Project name', but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate. It doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, allowed characters) or provide examples, leaving the schema to define only the basic type.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('a registered project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'clear_cache' or 'configure' that might also remove or modify projects, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the project must be registered first), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'register_project_tool' or 'list_projects_tool', leaving the agent with no context for decision-making.

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