Project Link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states that workspace and domain are created if absent and that relinking moves the project, but omits permissions, idempotency, and other side effects expected of a mutation tool.

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?

Uses bold headings and front-loads purpose and usage. It includes a return shape even though an output schema exists, which is redundant, but the overall structure is efficient and every other section adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, return, example, organization, and parameter notes, which is substantial. Yet with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the undocumented connection_id and missing behavioral details (permissions, side effects) leave gaps for a four-parameter mutation 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains project (path/URL/key, normalized git remote) and the roles/derivation of workspace and domain, but connection_id is never mentioned. Partial compensation for four parameters.

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 ('Liga') and resource ('repositório a workspace/domain do segundo cérebro'), with example and return shape. Sibling tools do not include a comparable link operation, so the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: configuring a project for the first time, and notes that /plumb-setup performs this. It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the context is clear.

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