tc_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the HTTP methods (GET, POST, PATCH, DELETE) and request bodies, implying side effects for mutations. However, it does not explicitly disclose the permanence of deletions, required permissions, or potential side effects like cascading changes. The description provides moderate transparency but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 long but well-structured with a bulleted list of actions, each briefly described. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeated path patterns), and it could be more concise while retaining all information. The structure aids readability, but the length is justified by the number of actions.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, 23 actions), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all actions with their HTTP methods, paths, request bodies, and parameter requirements. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains the tool's capabilities. It addresses the need for agents to understand how to invoke different endpoints.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining when parameters like projectId, id, subId, etc., are required based on the action's path. It also clarifies the 'action' parameter's enum values and the 'region' parameter's meanings. This contextual information goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool is for 'Trimble Connect Projects administration' and enumerates a comprehensive list of actions (update, delete, clone, members, roles, settings, license, metrics, sync status). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like tc_list_projects or tc_create_project, which are more limited.

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 explains how to select the endpoint via the 'action' parameter and that path placeholders are filled from matching input parameters. It lists all actions with their HTTP methods and paths. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus simpler alternatives like tc_list_projects or tc_get_project, leaving the decision implicit.

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