company_kb_remove_repository

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states destructive local effects: deleting index entries, vectors, and by default the cached clone. It also clearly reassures that it never writes to GitLab. This is strong 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and scope; the second adds essential destructive-effect detail and a safety guarantee. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

The description conveys the tool's purpose, destructive scope, and safety boundary well, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, the missing parameter semantics and lack of guidance on selecting between url and project leave the definition incomplete for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining url, project, and deleteCache. It does not explain how to identify the repository (url vs project, either or both, precedence) and only indirectly hints at deleteCache through 'by default the local cached clone'. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 a specific action ('Remove'), a specific resource ('one synchronized GitLab repository'), and the local scope ('local RAG system'). It also contrasts with sibling tools by emphasizing this operates locally and never writes to GitLab.

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 implies this tool is for removing a repository that has been synchronized, and the sibling company_kb_sync_repository suggests the inverse operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any conditions or exclusions.

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