project_actor_boundary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does meaningfully: 'Fail-closed' is a strong behavioral signal that the tool returns denial/negative results when the check cannot be satisfied, and 'Remote requests are denied as a tenant/auth coverage gap' explains why and how a class of inputs is treated. It does not disclose output shape, error behavior, or side effects, but for a validation/boundary check the fail-closed semantics are the most important behavior and are clearly stated.

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 high information density and no filler. The fail-closed behavior is front-loaded, and the remote-request policy follows immediately. Every clause 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 local boundary check, the description captures the critical policy behavior but leaves important context unstated: no output schema exists, and the description does not say what the check returns or what an agent should do after a denial. Given the low schema/annotation richness and the fact that an agent must invoke this correctly among 40+ siblings, the absence of a stated return/response contract or parameter rationale makes it merely adequate rather than 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not define any of the four parameters. The names 'actor' and 'project_id' are self-explanatory enough, and 'remote' plus 'requested_project' are inferable as part of a boundary check, but the description adds no explicit meaning to the parameters. With no schema descriptions and no parameter explanation in prose, the agent is left to infer the semantics of 'remote' and 'requested_project' from the tool name and the remote-denial sentence alone, which is a real gap.

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's first clause, "Fail-closed local actor/project check," clearly identifies the verb (checks) and resource (actor/project) and distinguishes it from likely sibling tools like 'project_boundary' by emphasizing 'local' and the fail-closed boundary behavior. The second half adds a specific policy detail (remote requests denied) that reinforces what this check is for. It does not fully spell out a distinct operation name, but it is far from vague and does differentiate from the project-commit and session-family siblings.

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 makes the intended usage context explicit: this is a local actor/project authorization or boundary check that should fail closed, and remote requests are explicitly treated as a denied 'tenant/auth coverage gap.' This tells an agent when to reach for this tool (local actor/project checks) and gives exclusion logic (remote requests are not handled here). It does not name a specific alternative sibling, but it does convey a clear when/why distinction that is sufficient for selection.

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