df_project_setup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool auto-detects Jira type, API version, Git provider, and base branch, and it clearly instructs the agent to request credentials rather than assume them. It stops short of describing side effects or persistence, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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 three short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds auto-detection behavior and a critical credential warning. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary overlap with the schema.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the setup purpose, auto-detection, and credential handling reasonably well. However, it does not describe the expected result or return value, nor does it clarify what side effects occur after setup, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. Each parameter already has detailed instructions such as 'PREGUNTA AL USUARIO' and examples. The description adds only a general credential-handling policy rather than parameter-specific semantics, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 opens with 'Configurar un nuevo proyecto' — a specific action and resource — and clarifies that the tool links Jira and a Git provider. It distinguishes from siblings mainly through the word 'nuevo' (new project), though it does not explicitly name df_project_update or state when to use one over the other.

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 intended use case is implied: setting up a new project that links Jira and Git. The IMPORTANTE block adds practical guidance by telling the agent to ask the user for all credentials and never invent them. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, such as using df_project_update for existing projects.

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