link_claude_desktop

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the two argument outcomes but omits side effects (e.g., overwriting existing config), error conditions, and idempotency. For a config-modifying tool, this is insufficient.

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 short and uses a clear Args structure. It is efficient, though the first sentence could be more impactful. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not describe return values or behavior. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., project existence) and error handling, leaving ambiguity 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%, so the description carries full burden. It clearly explains project_id as 'The Metis project ID' and write_config with conditional behavior, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema types.

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 states 'Register a Metis project in Claude Desktop's project list,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like connect_project_folder by focusing on registering in Claude Desktop rather than connecting a folder. However, it could be more explicit about the integration target.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., connect_project_folder, create_project). The description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios where this registration is appropriate.

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