project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds that structured data lives in projects.db and large docs go to Wiki pages, but it does not disclose which actions are destructive, what archive/update do, or any auth or rate constraints. It adds only minimal context beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose statement and structured logically: purpose, then storage semantics. 'Universal Primitive' is expendable, but otherwise there is no wasted 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?

For a 10-parameter multi-action tool, the description leaves action semantics, required parameter usage, and when to choose it over siblings unspecified. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the invocation contract is largely missing.

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 has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'keyed by name' but does not explain the action enum values, path, role, layer, status, details, outcome, user_id, or decision. With such low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 it manages project-specific context and file mapping, and notes projects are global and keyed by name. However, it never names a specific operation (init/update/archive/etc.) or explains what invoking the tool actually does, and 'Universal Primitive' is unhelpful jargon. It is more than a tautology but still vague about the core 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?

No when-to-use guidance is given relative to siblings (evolve, memory_hook, think, etc.) or any alternative. The note that large documents go to the Wiki hints at a boundary, but it is a storage implementation detail rather than invocation guidance.

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