dismiss_project_registration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the persistent side effect (stored in ~/.claude/data/ai-team-os/dismissed_projects.json), that the choice is irreversible ('no tool reverses'), and explicitly negates destructive behavior ('No project is created, changed, or deleted'). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its headline effect in the first sentence, followed by two short paragraphs that cover the trigger context, persistence location, irreversibility, and non-effects. No sentence is redundant.

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 need no explanation, and the description covers everything else an agent needs: trigger condition, persistence location, irreversibility, and the absence of destructive side effects. Complete for a low-complexity, single-optional-parameter 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 description coverage is 100% and the single cwd parameter already documents the empty-string default meaning. The description mentions 'current cwd' consistently but adds no format, path-resolution, or traversal detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific action (mark cwd as dismissed for project registration) and a specific resource (the current working directory), and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like project_create/project_update by stating no project is created or changed. An agent can tell it apart from the similarly named briefing_dismiss and notice_dismiss without opening any schema.

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?

It clearly gives the triggering context — the session-start briefing asking whether to register an unregistered working directory — and the resulting condition (it stops asking for that directory, and the Dashboard notice is dismissed). What is missing is an explicit named alternative, e.g. 'to register instead, use project_create', so the when-not branch is only implied.

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