remove_project_command

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 only states it returns true if found, implying false otherwise, but does not mention destructive nature, required permissions, or side effects. For a removal operation, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action and return type. The version prefix 'v2.1.0' is minor noise but not harmful. It wastes no words, though it could pack more useful 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the core function. However, given the extensive sibling list, more context about error handling or relationship to other commands would improve completeness.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for its two parameters (projectId, commandName). The description does not add any meaning beyond their names, leaving the agent uninformed about formats, constraints, or expected values.

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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'command', specifying it removes a command by name and returns a boolean. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'append_project_command' (add) and 'remove_project_fact' (different resource).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling removal tools (e.g., remove_project_fact, remove_project_convention), no differentiation or context is given. There are no prerequisites or when-not-to-use hints.

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