configure_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns questions and does not itself create the project (by directing to call create_project afterward). This implies a non-mutating behavior, though it doesn't explicitly state 'no side effects' or mention permissions. The sequential flow makes the behavior transparent enough for the agent.

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 concise: three sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core function, the second gives the critical usage instruction, and the third provides the next step. No filler or repetition, and the most important 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the when-to-use, and the follow-up action. The output schema handles return value details, and the description doesn't need to explain them. The workflow is fully captured.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description adds no parameter info, but no parameters exist, so nothing is missing. The description's focus on workflow adequately compensates for any potential ambiguity.

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 tool's function: 'Returns structured questions for configuring a new project.' It uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('structured questions'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as the first step before create_project, unlike list_templates or other tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this FIRST when a user wants to create a project.' It also provides the full workflow: present questions, collect answers, then call create_project. This clearly separates it from alternatives and instructs the agent on sequencing.

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