Record or revise a shared project fact or interface contract so cross-harness coding tasks share consistent context and avoid conflicting assumptions.
Write or update one shared project fact or interface contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| task_id | No | ||
| category | No | note | |
| author_harness | No | controller |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'write or update' but does not disclose overwrite vs. merge semantics, whether a key collision replaces existing content, permission requirements, or conflict behavior — critical for a mutation tool with five parameters.
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 with no filler. It is concise, though its brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail rather than being efficiently informative.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, for a five-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and no schema descriptions, the definition omits nearly all the context an agent needs to call it 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it only vaguely gestures at 'key' and 'content'. It adds no meaning for task_id, category (default 'note'), or author_harness (default 'controller'), leaving three of five parameters completely unexplained.
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 states a specific verb-plus-resource action: 'Write or update' a 'shared project fact or interface contract'. This is clearly a mutation counterpart to the sibling get_project_context, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling or clarify what a 'key' represents.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_project_context, nor when to supply task_id, category, or author_harness. 'Shared project fact' implies project-level scope, but the description leaves all selection criteria to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.