add_allowed_dir

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful constraints: the path is resolved via realpath, symlink escapes are rejected, and the directory must already exist. This goes beyond a generic 'add' description and helps the agent predict failure conditions.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral constraints are presented in a compact, readable way.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, what input it expects, and the key constraints an agent must know to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already covers the path parameter at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying realpath resolution, symlink escape rejection, and the existence requirement, enriching the semantics beyond the schema's simple 'Absolute or relative directory path to allow'.

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 a specific action ('Grant') and resource ('a directory'), and clarifies the purpose ('for local Cursor agent file writes'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_allowed_dir and list_allowed_dirs.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a directory needs to be granted for local Cursor agent writes. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool names and the 'Grant' verb make the intended usage obvious.

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