configure_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a create-or-update operation that only modifies specified fields, leaving others intact. However, it does not mention potential side effects like file locking, authorization requirements, or error conditions. For a configuration tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 consists of four concise sentences, each providing essential information: what the tool does, what settings can be overridden, the partial update behavior, and the prerequisite. There is no redundant or extraneous content, and the structure front-loads the core 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 the moderate complexity of a configuration tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter overview. However, it does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure confirmation), which is a gap that could hinder the agent's understanding of the tool's outcome.

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 already has high description coverage (100%) for all parameters, providing clear definitions. The description adds an overview of parameter categories but does not introduce new semantic nuances beyond what is in the schema. Therefore, the value added is minimal, and a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Create or update' and the resource 'per-project settings in alcove.toml', specifying the fields that can be overridden. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'init_project' by explicitly requiring it as a prerequisite, ensuring the agent knows when to use which.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance and a clear precondition: 'Run init_project first if the project does not yet exist.' It also explains partial updates: 'Only the fields you specify are changed; unmentioned settings are preserved.' This helps the agent decide when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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