control-project

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It outlines three actions but does not disclose side effects, safety considerations, or whether actions are reversible. Schema enumerates actions but description adds minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, concise and to the point with no superfluous information. All words are necessary and front-loads the purpose.

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 simple two-parameter schema, description covers actions but lacks explanation of return values or state changes after execution. Since no output schema exists, more detail would be beneficial.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning by explaining each action: 'starting services', 'stopping cloud hosting resources', 'discarding pending deployment changes', which goes beyond the schema's brief 'Action: start, stop, or discard'.

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 controls a Bult project lifecycle with specific verbs: starting services, stopping cloud hosting resources, or discarding pending deployment changes. It distinguishes from siblings like 'control-service' by focusing on project-level actions.

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?

Description implies usage for project lifecycle actions but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like 'control-service' or 'deploy-project'. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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