upsert_project_context

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden and does a good job disclosing behavior: merge semantics for arrays (append+dedup) and scalars (overwrite), and that there is one record per projectId. It misses potential side effects (e.g., triggering other processes) but is otherwise transparent.

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 two sentences but includes version info 'v2.1.0' which is irrelevant for an agent and wastes space. Otherwise, it is reasonably concise and front-loads the main purpose.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and complex nested parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify that omitted fields are preserved during the merge, nor does it explain the optionality of array parameters. This leaves ambiguity for proper use.

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 only 20%, but the description adds value by explaining how array fields (facts/conventions/commands/glossary) are handled. However, it does not elaborate on the structure of nested objects (commands, glossary) beyond what the schema provides, and it fails to mention that omitted fields remain unchanged.

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 merges structured project knowledge into a ProjectContextRecord for a projectId, specifying array append+dedup and scalar overwrite behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like append_project_fact, which could confuse an agent about when to use this bulk operation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as append_project_fact or get_project_context. The description does not mention prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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