memory_link_project

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

Annotations indicate idempotent, not read-only, not destructive. The description adds the side effect of creating a .contextforge file, which is valuable context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences: first sentence states purpose and effect, second states side effect. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no extraneous 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, effect, and side effect. It could mention error handling or prerequisites (e.g., project existence unless create_new), but overall is sufficient.

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 description does not need to add much. It echoes the schema's description for project_name (showing available projects if not provided) but does not add new semantics or formatting details.

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 links the current directory to a ContextForge project and specifies the effect (queries filtered to project spaces). It distinguishes from siblings like memory_unlink_project by describing the link action.

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 when to use (to enable project-specific query filtering) and provides context about project selection behavior via the 'project_name' parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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