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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuine value beyond them: case-insensitive name matching and the guarantee that an existing project is returned rather than duplicated. It also flags an authorization requirement ("Needs permission to change tasks"), a detail annotations do not carry.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core action and the key non-obvious trait (safe to call when the project may already exist) are front-loaded, with the permission caveat last.

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 single-parameter create tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, idempotent behavior, matching rules, and auth requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: the name is matched case-insensitively and typically corresponds to a repository folder. That is real added meaning for the sole parameter.

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 ("Add a project to the board") and adds a domain scoping hint ("for software, usually one per repository"). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like fenbs_rename_project or fenbs_update_project, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives clear usage context: "Safe to call when it may already exist" tells the agent it need not pre-check for existence. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., use fenbs_update_project to modify an existing one).

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