update_project_root

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: it explains that the tool will insert if the row doesn't exist (a failsafe), and notes that this case should never happen due to SQL initialization. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the fallback behavior.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. Every word is meaningful: it states the action, the resource, and the failsafe behavior. No unnecessary information is present.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and annotations that declare idempotency, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the purpose, the fallback behavior, and notes that the insert case is unexpected. No additional information seems necessary for an agent to understand and use the tool 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 covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description ('New project root path (absolute path)'). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 updates the project root in the infrastructure table. The verb 'update' and resource 'project root' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_project', which might update other project fields; the name alone provides some distinction but the description could be more explicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions a failsafe condition but does not explain why one would choose this over other update tools like 'update_project' or 'update_project_state'. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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