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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (a mutation), idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the effect of adding (availability to layer and query tools), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about what removal does to dependent layers/queries or any permission requirements.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb pair and resource kinds, with no filler. Both sentences carry information, though the effect sentence could be slightly more specific.

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 tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits what happens on removal, the meaning of resourceId/title, and any side effects, leaving significant gaps an agent must guess at.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It restates the action enum and resourceType values (already self-documenting via schema enums) but never explains projectId, resourceId, or the optional 'title' parameter, which is completely unaddressed.

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 pair (add/remove) and enumerates the resource kinds (source, collection, symbol set, theme) plus the target (project context), so the operation is clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings like resource_share_grant, resource_change_visibility, or project_add_layer, leaving the agent to infer which is correct.

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 second sentence implies a use case ('Adding a resource makes it available to project layer and query tools'), which gives some context for when to add. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when removal is appropriate versus resource_delete or resource_share_revoke.

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