project_coverage

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description usefully adds that data is persisted with the project and where (next to a .ged file, or in a server-side file for a gene-archive site). It stops short of describing error cases or exactly what 'mark' overwrites, but the storage disclosure is genuine value beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded opening is good, but the long parenthetical about .ged files and gene-archive sites is dense and adds tangential storage detail, and the arrow notation is compressed. It is readable but not tight; several clauses could be trimmed.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the data model, the three actions, and the persistence model for a 9-parameter mutation tool. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, with only minor param-level gaps remaining.

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?

The arrow-chain data model (parish → year → part → film and frames → status) and the status vocabulary (complete, partial up to 'No. …', not found) reinforce and enrich the 'entries' parameter beyond the schema's own text. With 67% schema coverage this helps, though the somewhat non-standard 'lang', 'year_from', and 'year_to' params receive no description-side clarification.

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 conveys a specific domain resource (register-reading coverage: parish → year → part → film/frames → status) and reads clearly as a coverage-tracking tool. It does not, however, cleanly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like project_view, project_log, and project_save, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Mark each book when you finish it' and 'ask what is still unread ... before opening a film,' which maps onto the mark/unread actions. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., vs project_log or project_view).

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