Ask the user to confirm their understanding of the cost of creating a new project or branch. Call get_cost first. Returns a unique ID for this confirmation which should be passed to create_project or create_branch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| recurrence | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds context by explaining it returns a unique confirmation ID and that it is a prerequisite for creation. It does not contradict annotations and clarifies the interactive nature (asking the user) beyond the structured hints.
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 sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with the primary action and immediately provides the prerequisite call and output usage. Every sentence adds value.
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 is simple, and annotations cover safety. The description covers workflow and return value, but parameter semantics are entirely missing. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should explain what `amount` and `recurrence` represent. Without that, the tool is only partially usable.
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 has no descriptions and coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'cost of creating a new project or branch' which hints at the `type` parameter, but does not explain the meaning of `amount` and `recurrence`. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving agents uncertain about expected values.
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 tool's purpose: asking the user to confirm cost understanding before creating a project or branch. It is distinct from siblings by referencing the confirmation ID flow and explicitly naming the dependent tools (`create_project`/`create_branch`). The verb 'confirm' and resource 'cost' are specific.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call `get_cost` first, providing clear sequencing. Also states the output should be passed to `create_project` or `create_branch`, defining when this tool is used in the overall workflow. This differentiates it from alternatives and gives actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.