manage_resource

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 discloses important conditional requirements and directs users to `delete`, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, partial-update behavior, or return values. This adds some behavioral context but leaves notable 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 three dense sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every clause contributes useful conditional information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

This is a complex 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description covers the key conditional requirements well, but it omits update semantics (e.g., whether omitted fields remain unchanged), error behavior, and return value. It is adequate for basic selection and invocation but not fully complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining conditional parameter requirements that are not encoded in the schema, such as when `project` vs `current_name` is needed depending on resource type and action.

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 tool creates or updates projects, modules, labels, or folders, using a specific verb and resource set. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `delete` tool by explicitly saying 'Use delete for deletion.'

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance by specifying required parameters for each resource/action combination, e.g., 'Create project requires name and identifier; project update requires project=<IDENT>.' It also points to `delete` as the alternative for deletion, though it does not enumerate all other sibling alternatives.

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