add_document_to_project

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'associate,' lacking details on side effects, required permissions, or whether this is a linking operation versus a creation. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged.

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 extremely concise (5 words), which is efficient but at the cost of omitting necessary context. It is front-loaded but insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not mention the output schema, which exists, nor provide information about behavior or parameter constraints.

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 should explain what project_id and document_id are. It does not; it only repeats the tool's purpose without adding meaning to the 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Associate a document with a project' with specific verb and resources, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like add_contact_to_project or add_email_to_project which deal with different entities.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like remove_contact_from_project or for creating a new association. No mention of prerequisites such as whether the document or project must already exist.

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