higpertext-configure-project

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

Annotations already flag idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds concrete behavioral context by stating it does not overwrite an existing configuration. It also clarifies that the tool writes new files, consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the primary action, lists the exact files created, and includes the critical non-overwrite guarantee. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 one well-documented parameter, safety-related annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough to support correct invocation. It states what is created, where, and the key side-effect constraint.

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 100%, and the profile parameter already carries a meaningful description ('Nombre de un perfil ya registrado...'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema fully covers this simple single-parameter case.

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 uses a specific verb ('Crea') and names the exact resource: the minimal higpertext configuration in the current project, including the specific files to be created. The listed artifacts clearly distinguish it from the sibling tools, which generate codex rules or render adapters.

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 clearly implies use at project setup by stating it creates the minimal configuration in the current project. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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