project_relocate

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

The description adds the behavioral detail 'without moving project files,' which is not in annotations. Annotations include idempotentHint and openWorldHint, which are consistent with an update operation. However, the description does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to the old root.

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 a single sentence that gets to the point with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it omits parameter descriptions, which would improve usefulness without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

With 2 simple parameters and an output schema, this tool does not demand extensive context. However, the description lacks any mention of return value, prerequisites, or validation rules. It is minimally complete but leaves the agent guessing about parameter details.

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 0%, so description must compensate, but it does not describe parameters. 'projectId' is self-explanatory, but 'newRoot' is ambiguous (path? identifier?). The agent is left without guidance on format or meaning beyond parameter names.

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 specifies a clear action: 'Update a registered project to an authorized existing root without moving project files.' It uses a specific verb+resource ('Update a registered project') and adds a key behavioral constraint ('without moving project files'), distinguishing it from update tools that might move files.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_update, project_doctor, or project_archive. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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