add_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: immediate registration, deferred agent spawn, the codex trusted-directory addition, and the language prepend behavior. It also details workspace behavior, covering mutation side effects and prerequisites without contradiction.

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 well-organized, front-loading the core action and then using bullet-style paragraphs for optional parameters. It is slightly long but every sentence adds relevant context; no filler or repetition.

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 7-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description covers the most behaviorally significant parameters but leaves 'tags' and 'agent' completely unexplained. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but parameter coverage is incomplete for an agent to use all options 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'language' and 'workspace' parameters in detail, including default behavior and formatting. However, it does not explain 'name', 'path', 'tags', 'agent', or 'description', leaving their semantics to inference or schema defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('registry.yaml'), making the core action unambiguous. It also clarifies that this is an addition operation (not update/removal) by describing the registry append and the deferred agent spawn, which separates it from siblings like update_project.

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 clearly states the operation's effect ('Registration is immediate... not spawned until next dispatch'), which tells an agent when it is appropriate to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the side-effect explanation implies the timing and scope of use.

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