proj_add_document

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the document is copied or linked, whether the path must already exist on disk, what happens if it is already a member, or what permissions are needed. 'Dictionary confirming the operation' is too vague to convey outcome.

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 one-line purpose followed by short Args and Returns blocks. No filler, though the Returns line adds little and the structure is boilerplate rather than tailored to what an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return value needn't be spelled out, and both parameters are covered. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, though, the description should mention prerequisites (document exists, project open) and failure behavior to be complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning — and it delivers: document_path is documented as a full path and project_path as optional with a stated fallback to the active project. That fallback semantics is not derivable from the schema alone.

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: 'Add an existing document to a project.' An agent can tell this mutates project membership rather than document content. However, it does not distinguish itself from the nearby siblings proj_import_document and proj_list_documents, which look adjacent in intent.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative proj_import_document. The only guidance is the implicit default behavior for project_path ('uses active project'), which is parameter help rather than usage selection.

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