Register a T3 project

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context: a remote workspace is registered rather than cloned, missing directories can be created on request, and an idempotency key is required. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, an optional behavior, and a concise caveat plus prerequisites. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and key caveats like non-cloning and required scope are included. However, with five parameters and zero schema-level descriptions, leaving the semantics of title, workspaceRoot, and defaultModelSelection implicit makes the definition merely adequate rather than complete.

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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It only explains createWorkspaceRootIfMissing and mentions idempotencyKey as a requirement; title, workspaceRoot, and defaultModelSelection are left undocumented, leaving required parameters largely inferred from their names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Register a remote workspace as a T3 project.' It clearly distinguishes this registration action from sibling read/list tools such as t3_projects_list, and the explicit 'does not clone a repository' caveat removes ambiguity about what the tool does not do.

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 states prerequisites (orchestration control scope, idempotencyKey) and explains the behavior of createWorkspaceRootIfMissing, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over an alternative. The 'does not clone a repository' note is helpful exclusionary guidance but is not a full usage policy.

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