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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by describing the effect of an add (visibility to project layer and query tools), but it is silent on what a remove actually does — whether the underlying resource is deleted or merely detached — which is exactly the ambiguity destructiveHint=false is trying to settle.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the operation stated first and the operational consequence second. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the primary effect but leaves a meaningful hole: the semantics of removal and the purpose of the optional 'title' field. Annotations pick up the safety and idempotency slack, so it is adequate rather than deficient.

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 carries the burden, and it only partially does: it names the resourceType values (source, collection, symbol_set, theme) and implies the add/remove action, but those mirror enum values already in the schema. The fifth parameter, 'title', is never mentioned anywhere, and there is no note on resourceId needing to correspond to the chosen resourceType.

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?

Specific verb pair (add/remove) plus a precisely scoped resource (a project context) and an enumeration of the four manageable resource types. Clear enough to distinguish from layer-editing siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with project_add_layer / project_remove_layers, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 sentence 'Adding a resource makes it available to project layer and query tools' implies a use case (call this before layer/query tooling), but the guidance is only implicit. There are no exclusions, no prerequisites (must the resource already exist? must the agent have share rights?), and no mention of when removal is appropriate.

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