append_project_convention

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It mentions auto-create and dedup, which are helpful, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it mutates, what happens on duplicate, required permissions, or return format). This is insufficient for understanding the full behavior.

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 sentence with version info, which is concise but includes an unnecessary version number that doesn't aid selection. It is moderately well-structured but lacks prioritization of key details.

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 it's a simple mutation tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or prerequisites like whether the project must exist. The auto-create hint addresses one gap but overall leaves many questions unanswered.

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 explain the parameters. It does not clarify what 'convention' expects as input format or what 'projectId' refers to. The description adds no value beyond the raw 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 it appends a convention to a project context, with auto-creation and deduplication. It specifically mentions 'convention' distinguishing it from sibling append tools like append_project_fact and append_project_command. However, it could clarify what 'auto-creates' refers to (likely the project context entry).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for conventions, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like append_project_fact or remove_project_convention.

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