Initialise project

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it creates specific lock and documentation files, refuses to overwrite on a second invocation, and returns the initialised .grove path. This adds context the annotations alone do not provide, such as the refusal behavior and project-wide dependency on the lock.

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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the core action and artifacts, follows with the essential usage constraint, then summarizes parameters, and closes with the return value. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the full picture: what is created, when to use it, what happens on misuse, what the parameters affect, and what to expect as a return value. Nothing critical is missing for an agent 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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a layer of meaning by explaining that id-stride, id-offset, and id-width tune 'numeric id allocation for new nodes', connecting the parameters to their purpose beyond their individual schema 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Initialise a grove project' and names the exact artifacts created (.grove/state.lock, index.md, glossary.md). It is clearly differentiated from the many sibling tools by describing a one-time setup action with a concrete outcome.

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?

It explicitly states when to run this tool: 'Run once per project.' It also explains consequences of not running it ('every other tool fails until the lock exists') and that a second run refuses rather than overwrites, giving clear usage boundaries.

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