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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does add a specific note about webhooks being first-class resources that survive project deletion, which is valuable. However, it does not cover other behaviors such as idempotency, error handling, or whether duplicate additions are allowed. The webhook note partially compensates for the lack of annotations.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the webhook note adds important context without being verbose. It is well-structured for quick scanning.

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 tool has an output schema, so return format is covered. The description covers the core action and a key behavioral nuance, but it omits details about when to use this tool vs siblings, idempotency, or possible errors. For a tool that adds resources, these are relevant gaps.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context about webhooks within the resources parameter, clarifying their behavior. This is a modest addition beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Add one or more resources to a project.' It identifies the verb, resource, and target. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like assign_webhook_resource or remove_project_resource, though the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like assigning a webhook to a project (covered by assign_webhook_resource) or removing resources (remove_project_resource). The only usage hint is the webhook note, but it does not state when to choose this tool over others.

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