Hiveround

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the action is idempotent on same-side calls, auto-promotes status, adds amount to progress, and requires an API key. It does not detail error states (e.g., if commitment already committed), but the key behaviors are covered.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey all critical information: who, what, effect, idempotency, and authentication. No superfluous text.

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 the minimal input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for effective use. It covers the action, the conditions for status change, and the no-op behavior. A minor gap is the absence of prerequisites (e.g., commitment must be in soft_circled/term_sheet status), but it's not critical.

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 100% with one parameter described as 'Commitment UUID.' The tool description adds context by explaining that acknowledging this commitment triggers status changes, enriching the semantic meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 identifies the action (acknowledge a commitment), specifies the actors (founder or investor), explains the effect (status promotion and round progress addition), and notes the no-op behavior. It differentiates from sibling tools like submit_commitment and update_commitment_status by focusing on the acknowledgment step.

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 implicitly states when to use the tool (when a commitment needs acknowledgment) and the requirement for both sides to acknowledge for status promotion. It does not explicitly exclude usage scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and adds context about returned data (founder's GitHub handle). However, it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., what happens if slug is invalid), idempotency, or 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and key details without wasted words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a notable output field. However, it omits return structure details, error handling, and any preconditions, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 should compensate. It mentions 'slug' as the identifier but provides no details on format, constraints, or examples. The parameter remains opaque beyond its role in identification.

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 'Get' and the resource 'full project listing', specifying the identifier 'by slug' and highlighting the inclusion of 'founder's GitHub handle'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_projects' (which likely returns summaries) and 'search_projects' (which uses search criteria).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_projects' or 'search_projects'). The use of 'by slug' implies unique identification, but best practices or exclusion conditions are not mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It adds '(requires API key)' which helps with authentication awareness, but does not disclose whether the call is read-only, destructive, or other behavioral traits.

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 sentences long, with the primary action stated first. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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 the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the resource, scope, filters, and auth requirement. However, it does not address return format, pagination, or ordering.

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 50%. The description partially covers parameters by mentioning 'project slug, your role, or status', which maps to slug, role, and status. However, the 'limit' parameter is omitted, and the description adds little beyond the schema's existing enum definitions.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'commitments', and specifies the scope 'where you're either the investor or the founder'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_intros and list_projects by indicating commitment-specific filtering.

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 mentions filtering capabilities but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_projects or list_intros. No explicit when-not or recommendations are given.

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

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

Discloses requires API key and that it's a read operation listing threads with specific fields. No side effects to note; annotations are absent so description carries burden.

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?

Single sentence with parentheticals, front-loaded, no wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, output fields, filters, and auth. Lacks explanation of limit/pagination, but adequate for a simple list tool.

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 covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions; limit is undocumented. Description mentions role and unread_only but not limit, providing little additional value over schema.

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?

Description clearly states it lists intro threads the user is a party to, with specific fields and filter options. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_intro_thread (single thread) and request_intro.

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?

Description implies usage for browsing intros, with optional filters. No explicit when-not or alternative comparisons, but context from siblings makes it clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns newest open projects raising, capped at 25. This goes beyond the schema to inform agent behavior, though it omits read-only or authentication details.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter effects, ordering, filtering, and return structure, leaving significant 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 coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for either parameter (limit, stage). It only alludes to the maximum return count, failing to clarify the parameters' purpose or usage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists newest open projects raising on Hiveround, with a specific maximum return. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_projects.

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 implies usage for retrieving a quick list of recent projects but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like search_projects or get_project.

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

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 that an API key is required and that the tool returns filtered data, but lacks details on pagination behavior (despite a limit parameter) or potential side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core functionality and return fields. No redundant words; every sentence adds value (purpose, fields, filters, auth requirement).

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 description lists return fields (stage, tags, raise size, timestamp) and optional filters, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it omits pagination behavior, ordering, and whether all watched projects are returned, leaving 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions optional filtering by stage or tag but fails to explain the limit parameter (its default, min, max) or the meaning of the tag parameter. This is inadequate for 3 parameters.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'your pipeline — every project you're watching' with specific fields (stage, tags, raise size, timestamp). It distinguishes from siblings like list_projects by focusing on watched projects and pipeline context.

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 mentions 'requires API key' as a prerequisite but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_projects or list_commitments. Usage context is implied but not clarified with exclusions.

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

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 the side effect (marks thread as read) and the requirement of an API key, but does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or other potential behaviors.

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. The most important information (reads all messages) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read tool with a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the action and side effect. Could optionally mention what is returned, but it is not strictly necessary.

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 100% and the parameter intro_id is well-described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 reads all messages in an intro thread and marks it as read, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like list_intros (which lists intros) and send_intro_message (which sends messages) by specifying the action of reading all messages in a thread.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'you're a party to', which provides some context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_intros or send_intro_message. No mention of when not to use or trade-offs.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the founder receives an email and that the tool requires an API key, but does not explain whether the operation is synchronous, what happens on failure, or if it creates a persistent record. This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.

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, each earning its place. Front-loaded with the main action, followed by a key behavioral detail and a requirement. No extraneous information.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and a key side effect. However, it omits the return value or response format, error handling, and how to retrieve the slug. The sibling tools list suggests integrations but this is not leveraged.

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 100%, with short descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by noting that the founder receives the investor's GitHub handle automatically, but does not clarify where the 'slug' comes from or how to obtain it. Additional context would improve usability.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'Request an intro to a project's founder' and specifies it is done on behalf of the API key's owner. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_intros and send_intro_message.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like send_intro_message or read_intro_thread. It provides basic context (requires API key, founder receives email with GitHub handle) but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic search operation. It omits information about whether the tool is read-only, authorization requirements, error handling, or performance considerations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and lists key details without any wasted words.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers basic input expectations but lacks details on return format, pagination, ordering, or error behavior. It is minimally complete for a straightforward search tool.

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 description adds value by listing the searchable fields (name, one-liner, description, sector) not detailed in the schema, and mentions optional filters (stage, max raise size). However, with 50% schema description coverage, it does not fully compensate for missing descriptions on limit and stage (stage values are not enumerated). This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 'Search open projects by keyword' across specific fields, making the verb and resource clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_projects, which likely lists all projects without search.

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 implies usage for searching projects with keyword and optional filters, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_projects or get_project.

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

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses the notification effect and API key requirement, but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or error modes.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: action, effect, usage context. No filler words.

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?

Sufficient for a simple tool with 2 required params and no output schema. Covers purpose, effect, usage, and auth. Missing error behavior or return value info, but not critical.

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 100% for both parameters (body and intro_id). The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting baseline.

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 ('append a message') and the resource ('existing intro thread'), and distinguishes from siblings like request_intro and read_intro_thread by specifying it's for follow-up.

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 says 'Use this to follow up after request_intro or to keep a conversation moving,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the status progression (soft_circled or term_sheet based on terms), the need for mutual acknowledgment, and the visibility constraint (not shown in public round progress until both ack). It also notes the requirement for an API key. However, it does not cover error conditions or idempotency.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main action. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is relatively complete. It covers the two possible initial statuses, the need for founder acknowledgment, and public visibility. However, it lacks information about the response format or error handling, which would be beneficial given the absence of an output schema.

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 schema description coverage is 83% (5 of 6 parameters documented). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how the 'terms' parameter affects the initial status and by noting the maximum length of 'notes' (4000 chars). The parameter descriptions in the schema are adequate, but the tool description enriches the meaning.

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: 'Record an investor's intent-to-fund a project.' It uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('intent-to-fund'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like acknowledge_commitment and list_commitments by focusing on the initial submission action.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (recording intent) and explains the two scenarios (with/without terms) that affect the initial status. It also clarifies that founder acknowledgment is required for full commitment. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tool list provides implicit differentiation.

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

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: role-based access control and allowable status changes, which are critical for correct use.

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 with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states action, second provides essential role constraints.

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?

Covers core behavior but missing return value, error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., commitment existence). Given no output schema and low parameter coverage, more context would improve completeness.

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 33% (only notes described). The description adds meaning to status through role context, but commitment_id and notes lack additional explanation beyond schema.

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 'Change a commitment's status' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'submit_commitment' by focusing on status updates.

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 role-gating rules (only investor can withdraw, only founder can fund) and valid status transitions, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that notes are appended (not overwritten), but lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 very concise, consisting of just three short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes essential preconditions without superfluous content.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and precondition but omits potential error behavior, return values, and permission details (beyond API key). It is sufficient for simple use but not fully complete.

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 low (33%), but the description adds value by clarifying that notes are appended. However, it does not explain slug or stage beyond what is in the schema, missing an opportunity to compensate for low coverage.

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 moves a watched project to a new pipeline stage and/or appends a note. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like watch_project (creates) and list_watches (reads). The verb 'update' is implied by the name and action.

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 specifies a precondition: the project must already be in the pipeline. It also mentions requiring an API key. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, missing the full 5-point criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must tell the agent about side effects. It mentions note appending and stage setting, but does not disclose whether updates overwrite or merge, or if the operation is idempotent.

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 that front-load the core action, enumeration, and a caveat (API key). No wasted words.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description should hint at the return value (e.g., what is returned after adding/updating). It does not, leaving the agent to guess the response format.

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 description adds context to the schema: it lists all stages, clarifies that notes are appended to a log, and implies default stage. Schema coverage is 67%, and the description compensates with valuable additions.

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: 'Add a project to your pipeline (or update its stage)', with explicit enumeration of valid stages. This differentiates it from siblings like get_project and list_watches, though not explicitly from update_watch.

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 context for usage (addition or update of pipeline projects) and a prerequisite (API key), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like update_watch.

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