chatgpt_project_instructions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses read-by-default behavior, the exact condition for writing, and a read-back verification step. It omits permission requirements and return-value details, but the core behavior is transparently described.

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, dense sentence that covers read mode, write condition, and verification. No words are wasted, and the most important behavior 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?

This tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to do substantial work. It leaves key parameter semantics and the response format unaddressed, making it insufficient for fully reliable invocation without further inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the roles of 'instructions' and 'save', while 'name', 'projectId', and 'operationId' remain unexplained. An agent cannot confidently determine how to fill all five parameters correctly.

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 reads project instructions and only writes when instructions and save=true are supplied. The resource ('project instructions') is distinct and none of the sibling tools appear to cover this specific function.

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?

It gives an explicit conditional for write behavior: writing only happens when instructions is provided and save=true, which implies the default is read-only. It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough to guide usage.

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