cor_add_project_cost

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Add' (implying mutation) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, idempotency, or reversibility. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the action.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a two-line list of arguments. No wasted words or irrelevant information. The main action is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

The output schema exists (not shown), but the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the cost entry affects the project. For a mutation tool, details on success criteria, error cases, or implications are missing. With many sibling tools, this minimal description may not be sufficient for an agent to reliably select and invoke the tool.

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 adds basic meaning: 'project_id: The project ID' and 'data: Cost data (description, amount, date, etc.)'. However, it is vague about the data structure (required fields, formats) and does not fully clarify the parameters' constraints or usage, leaving significant 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 'Add a cost entry to a project' clearly states the action (add) and resource (cost entry to a project), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cor_get_project_costs (retrieve costs) and cor_create_project (create project). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other 'add' tools (e.g., cor_add_project_collaborator), but the resource is specific.

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 cor_get_project_costs for reading costs or other add tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context of use, or situations where this tool is not appropriate.

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