direct_register_project_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the local, non-API nature and the dry_run/allow_write gating. However, it does not mention what happens if the project key is missing, whether existing data is overwritten, or what the tool returns.

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 exceptionally concise, using three short fragments that front-load the action and provide essential context without any fluff or redundancy.

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 simple local write tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core operation and write gating adequately, but it omits return values and edge-case behavior (e.g., handling of existing entries), leaving room for misinterpretation.

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 schema has only 25% description coverage, but the description adds meaning for project and campaign_id by explaining they are used as a key-value pair in projects.json. allow_write is already explained in the schema, while dry_run is only hinted at via 'or dry_run' without clear semantics, leaving some 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 action ('WRITE local'), resource ('projects.json'), and purpose ('pin campaign_id under project key'). The explicit 'No Direct API' distinguishes it from the many sibling direct_* tools that call the Direct API.

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 implies this is for local registration rather than API operations, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The 'No Direct API' exclusion helps differentiate, but no specific sibling is mentioned.

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