Social Add Project To Studio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation uses the active account identity and that Scratch imposes permission requirements. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema shows, though it does not cover failure modes or side effects.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. The permission caveat is important and placed immediately after the main action without unnecessary filler.

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?

The tool has a simple two-parameter schema, full parameter documentation, and an output schema, so returns need no explanation. The description covers the key contextual point (active account and permission conditions). Slightly more detail about failure behavior would be ideal, but it is not necessary for correct invocation.

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 100%, with both parameters clearly described as numeric IDs. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents everything needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('project to a studio'), and clarifies it operates as the active account. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools and makes the tool's function unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when the operation is allowed (owner, curator, or open studio), which helps the agent anticipate failure conditions. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the tool is unique among siblings, so exclusion guidance is less critical.

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