project_intake

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Create' implies persistence, but the description never says where the record lives, whether repeat calls are idempotent, what the record contains, or what happens when rightsConfirmed is false. 'Read-only' is also ambiguous — it could be misread as a pure read operation even though the tool writes a record.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every qualifier (read-only, reproducible, authorized) earns its place. It is arguably too terse for a six-parameter mutating tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 record-creating mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, the description should cover the record's contents, storage location, idempotency, and failure mode when authorization is not confirmed. None of that is present, so an agent has to guess at the tool's real contract.

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 only 50%: root, romPath and rightsConfirmed are documented in the schema, while name, sourcePlatform and targetPlatform are not. The description adds nothing about any parameter except an oblique hint that authorization (rightsConfirmed) is required; it does not explain the platform enum semantics or the N64→PS2 pairing constraint.

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?

States a concrete verb and artifact ('Create ... intake record') with explicit scope (N64 to PS2 port project) and qualifiers (read-only, reproducible). It does not name the sibling it replaces or precedes (port_project_plan, port_start, port_source_manifest), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 phrase 'for an authorized N64 to PS2 port project' implies the precondition (rights confirmed) and the lifecycle stage (intake, before planning/build tools). There is no explicit when-to-use versus port_project_plan/port_start, and no when-not-to-use or re-run guidance.

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