md_project_register_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It indicates a write-like action ('register') and lists metadata fields, but does not explain whether the operation modifies existing files, overwrites metadata, requires permissions, or behaves differently with dry_run. The dry_run and idempotency_key parameters suggest important behavioral nuances that are not mentioned.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. No unnecessary words or information, achieving maximum efficiency.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, which covers return values, the description is too sparse for a tool with 6 parameters, 3 required, and no parameter descriptions. It lacks context about the meaning of parameters, side effects, and when to use it within the broader project lifecycle. The complexity of the tool is not matched by the description.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'role' and 'provenance' (likely mapping to 'source'), but does not explain artifact_path, project_directory, dry_run, or idempotency_key. The reference to 'size' and 'SHA-256' suggests computed metadata, but the parameters' meanings remain ambiguous. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb 'register' and clearly states the resource ('a project file') and the type of metadata involved (role, provenance, size, SHA-256 integrity). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like md_project_get or md_project_initialize.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, idempotency considerations (despite an idempotency_key parameter), or cases where another tool would be more appropriate. No exclusions or conditions are stated.

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