fenbs_add_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses idempotent behavior (case-insensitive matching, existing project returned rather than duplicated) and a permission prerequisite ('Needs permission to change tasks'). It stops short of describing side effects like board placement or what the returned project contains.

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?

Three tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded, followed by the safety/idempotency note and the permission requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, idempotency, and permissions adequately. The only mild gap is the shape of the returned project, which is minor given no output schema exists to defer to.

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 100% for the single 'name' parameter, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: the name is matched case-insensitively and ties to a repository. That raises it above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a project to the board') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like list_projects, rename_project, and delete_project. The 'one per repository' scope note makes the intent unambiguous.

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 clarifies that the call is safe when the project may already exist and gives soft context ('usually one per repository'), which is useful. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g., rename_project) or states when NOT to use it, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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