lpbam

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether delete is destructive or reversible, what 'select' changes about application state, how the default save=true affects side effects, or whether operations require an open project. Only the mutation verbs themselves imply behavior.

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-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the operation set; no filler. The nested parenthetical is slightly awkward but costs little.

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?

Six parameters, six actions, mutations, no annotations and no output schema: the description is thin for that complexity. The schema covers parameters, but the description should indicate which parameters pair with which action and what the mutation actions affect; return values are not needed since no output schema exists, which keeps this at a minimum-viable 3.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does add a small amount beyond the schema by hinting that 'select' targets a configuration while 'select_project' targets the active MX project, mapping the otherwise opaque enum to meaning. It says nothing about which parameters apply to which action (new_name for rename, index vs name).

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?

States a specific verb ('Manage') and resource ('LPBAM / multi-context projects') and enumerates the operations: list, add, delete, rename, select. The parenthetical identifying it as the GUI's 'Low Power Banana' workflow is a useful disambiguator for an opaque acronym name. It does not, however, explain how it differs from the many project_* siblings that also list/delete/rename projects.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus project_list, project_delete, selectors, or any other sibling, and no preconditions or exclusions. The action list merely restates the schema enum, so the agent gets no routing guidance.

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