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: it names the persistence location (dismissed_projects.json in the OS data directory, discoverable via `aiteam paths`), states that no tool reverses the choice, and clarifies that the side effect is limited to suppression plus the Dashboard notice.

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 the consequence, then the mechanism and the non-effects. Slightly longer than needed — the parenthetical about the file path and `aiteam paths` could be trimmed — but every sentence carries signal.

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?

Single optional parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema, so the description only needs to cover intent, persistence, irreversibility, and non-effects — all of which are present.

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 coverage is already 100% and both description and schema state that an empty cwd means the current working directory. The prose reinforces the default's intent slightly beyond the schema but adds no new syntax or constraints.

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 leads with a specific verb+resource+scope: mark the current cwd as dismissed for project registration. It also explicitly negatives the adjacent project operations ('No project is created, changed, or deleted'), which keeps it distinct from project_create/project_update/project_delete.

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 explains the triggering context (the session-start briefing asks whether to register an unregistered cwd) and what changes afterwards. It does not name adjacent dismiss-style siblings such as notice_dismiss or briefing_dismiss, so an agent must infer that those are for different targets.

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