verified_assign_project_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It mentions verification but does not explain what happens if verification fails, whether the operation is idempotent, or any side effects. The behavior around the V2 sync verification is left ambiguous.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main action. The bracket sections for category, auth, and related tools add useful context without being verbose. However, it could be slightly more concise by removing redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and low schema coverage, the description is not complete. It fails to specify return values, error handling (e.g., verification failure), or any prerequisites for using the tool. The verification aspect is not elaborated, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond their names. 'project_id' and 'group_id' are mentioned but not defined; notably, 'group_id' likely refers to a folder ID but this is not clarified. The description adds no semantic value over the schema.

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 clearly states the action: assign a project to a folder and verify persistence via V2 sync. It uses specific verbs and resource names, and differentiates from siblings like update_project and list_project_folders.

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?

The description lists related tools (update_project, list_project_folders, full_sync) which hints at alternatives, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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