uselink_check_project_slug

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool performs a check and returns { available, suggestion? }, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not clarify what 'available' means (e.g., case sensitivity, normalization, or whether the slug is checked across all workspaces). The return shape is helpful but behavioral nuance is minimal.

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 sentence conveys the action, scope, and return shape without redundancy. The information is front-loaded and wastes no words.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter check tool. The description provides the return shape, which is important since there is no output schema. Given the low complexity, the description is nearly complete, though it could mention what 'suggestion' contains. Overall, it covers the essential context.

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% and the description does not add detail about the 'slug' parameter beyond what the name implies. It does not specify allowed characters, case sensitivity, or required format. The description only restates 'project slug' without further semantic value.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource 'project slug' with a clear scope ('in the PAT's workspace'). It also mentions the return shape, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_project or rename_project_slug.

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 purpose implies it is a pre-check before creating or renaming a project, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like create_project or rename_project_slug. There is no direct guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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