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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields (content, steps), side-effect sequence (write file at project root, keep it and .mcp.json out of git, add @sooveryn.md to CLAUDE.md, read it now, then activate Soov), re-run behavior (updates the file), and explicitly that it reads and writes no memory.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is generally efficient. However, some length comes from enumerating output fields and steps that the output schema may already cover, and there is minor redundancy between the early 'do not activate Soov before it' prohibition and the later 'then activate Soov' step.

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?

Given no annotations and an existing output schema, the description still supplies trigger conditions, side effects, ordering with the activate sibling, and memory behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to call this setup command correctly.

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 tool has zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explains output fields (user_name, projects_limit), but there are no input parameters to document, so no additional input semantics are required.

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: 'Sets up Sooveryn in the current project.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling activate tool by explicitly saying it is a setup command, not a greeting, and must run before activation.

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 explicit trigger phrases ('Soov Init' or older 'sooveryn init') and a clear ordering constraint ('do not activate Soov before it'). This tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool and how it relates to the activate sibling.

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