kb_add_project

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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only say non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive: the description discloses which file types are read (.TcPOU/.TcDUT/.TcGVL/.TcIO), that duplicate-unit indexing is blocked, that the response surfaces parse_errors and not_in_project, and that the action is audited (N127). This is the kind of write-side context annotations cannot convey.

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 core action and its consumer, then terse clause-by-clause constraints. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical N127 reference is the only mildly opaque bit.

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 an indexing mutation with an output schema, the description covers read scope, refusal conditions, error reporting and audit trail, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The one hole is the undocumented `label` parameter.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only implies that `path` is a project folder. The `label` parameter is never mentioned anywhere in the description or schema, leaving an agent to guess its purpose.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Index a project folder') and names the downstream consumer ('for kb_search (cross-project pattern search)'), which distinguishes it from kb_reindex, kb_rebuild and kb_remove_project. The scope ('nothing is indexed by default') further pins down what the call 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?

Explicit precondition: 'ONLY a folder the user named', plus an enumerated refusal list — plugin folders, the knowledge folder, and folders overlapping an already-indexed one. It also states the readonly-mode refusal, so an agent knows exactly when the call will fail.

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