add_project_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, omitting details such as idempotency, whether resources are replaced or appended, required permissions, error conditions, or side effects.

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?

A single sentence efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, though slightly more detail about the resource types would improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context. As a mutation tool, it is insufficiently descriptive about outcomes, prerequisites, and relationships to sibling tools.

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 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including the structure of 'resources' and the allowed types. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond 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 ('Add') and the resource ('resources to a project'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_project_resource' or 'list_project_resources', though the contrast is implied.

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 given on when to use this tool compared to alternatives (e.g., when to add vs. update vs. remove resources). The description lacks contextual cues about prerequisites or appropriate usage scenarios.

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