Add Project Toolbox

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and non-open-world. The description adds important behavioral constraints beyond that: accepted controlled formats (.atbx/.tbx), rejection of executable .pyt, and ability to make the toolbox default. It still does not describe permission requirements or the mutation's exact effect on the project.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, format restriction, and default option with no filler. The semicolon structure is compact and readable, though the sentence is dense.

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 annotations and an output schema, so safety and return values are partly covered by structured fields. However, with 4 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves validate and aprx_path undocumented, so it is 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the entire parameter burden. It partially covers toolbox_path (.atbx/.tbx, no .pyt) and make_default (可设为默认工具箱), but says nothing about aprx_path or the validate parameter.

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 (追加/add) and resource (受控 .atbx/.tbx 工具箱) to a project directory, and includes a key constraint (拒绝 .pyt). It does not explicitly differentiate from other add_* siblings such as add_project_style or add_folder_connection, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, no prerequisites. '可设为默认工具箱' describes a parameter effect, not a usage condition, and '拒绝可执行 .pyt' is a format constraint rather than guidance on when to invoke this tool.

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