saveProjProject

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses direct API invocation and fixed fields, adding context beyond creation. However, it omits details like error handling, permissions, or idempotency, but for a creation tool the disclosed preconditions and fixed values are substantial.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then succinctly lists prerequisites and fixed fields. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient yet comprehensive.

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 tool with 10 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, fixed fields, and parameter sources. It lacks return value details, but given no output schema, this is acceptable. Overall, it provides most needed context.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dependency on queryProjCustomer and queryProjUser results for customer and user parameters, and revealing fixed values for id and projectStatus (not in schema). This context beyond schema justifies a 4.

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 purpose: '新增项目' (add new project) and specifies the direct API call /projProject/saveEntityMap. It distinguishes from sibling tools like queryProjProjectList (list), updateProjProject (update), and deleteProjProject (delete) by focusing on creation.

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 explicitly lists prerequisites: must call queryProjCustomer first and have user select customer for customerName, customerCode, customerId; and if filling manager, must call queryProjUser for userId and pmName. It also notes fixed parameters (projectStatus=0, id=''). This provides clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.

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