manage_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the three discrete actions and the registration requirement, but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: an overview statement, specific action explanations, and a prerequisite. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage guidance but lacks details about response format, error conditions, and the exact format of the 'project' parameter. It's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral transparency.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of the 'action' parameter values ('list', 'add', 'remove') and implies the 'project' parameter is used with 'add' and 'remove' actions. However, it doesn't specify what format the 'project' parameter expects (path, name, ID).

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 with specific verbs ('manage', 'list', 'add', 'remove') and resources ('projects', 'indexing'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'index' or 'search'. It explains that this tool handles registration status for indexing, not the indexing process itself.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each action ('list' to see status, 'add' to register, 'remove' to unregister) and includes a prerequisite statement ('Projects must be registered before they can be indexed') that helps differentiate from the 'index' sibling tool.

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