cuemap_project_package_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does add some safety context: 'existing projects are never overwritten' and the requirement for explicit approval. However, it does not explain side effects, return values, or what 'warm' concretely does, leaving notable gaps.

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?

Two short sentences communicate the core action, the approval constraint, and the non-overwrite safety guarantee. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 description is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool, especially with a complete parameter schema. But because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should also cover likely side effects and result behavior; it only partially does so.

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 both confirmed and package_path are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the approval requirement but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Install and warm') and the resource ('a local .cuemap package'), which is more specific than the tool name alone. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like cuemap_project_load, so it is clear but lacks direct differentiation.

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 gives a firm when-to-use condition: only after the user explicitly approves the exact package path. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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