edit_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Replace' clearly indicates a mutation, and the auto_reindex parameter (visible in the schema) hints at a side effect, but the description itself does not state that the operation modifies the file, whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens if the targeted section does not exist. It also omits any mention of error conditions or response format beyond what the schema implies.

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 with zero filler. It immediately states the verb, target, and scope. Highly efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain whether the section must already exist, whether new sections can be created, or how errors are reported. The auto_reindex parameter's behavior is only documented in the schema, not in the description, leaving an agent to infer the tool's side effects. The tool appears simple, but these gaps could lead to incorrect invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the purpose. Parameters like content and section are already well-described in the schema, so the description does not compensate for any gaps—there are none.

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 provides a specific verb ('Replace'), a clear resource (a single named top-level (##) section of .context/project.md), and enough detail to distinguish it from siblings like edit_adr (targets ADR files) or write_project (likely a full rewrite). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is specifically for editing existing sections of project.md, nor note exclusions (e.g., cannot create new sections, or should be preferred over write_project for partial edits). The implied use case is clear but not explicitly framed relative to siblings.

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