write_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'overwrite' and does not mention that this destroys existing content, the auto_reindex behavior (default false and manual reindex reminder), or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the consequences of invocation.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. While it is very brief, the conciseness dimension rewards minimalism without sacrificing clarity, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters and no output schema. It omits key details such as the auto_reindex parameter's default behavior and its reminder, the accepted formats for project_path (owner/repo, URL), and when to use this tool instead of edit_project. An agent lacks necessary context to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (content, auto_reindex, project_path) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline of 3. It neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 'Overwrite the full content of .context/project.md.' clearly states a specific verb (overwrite) and resource (project.md). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edit_project, which could be for partial edits. The scope is implied but not stated.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention edit_project or any conditions for choosing write_project over it. There is no context about prerequisites, such as whether the project must already exist or the file must be present.

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