Yougile Projects

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

The description lists access levels (read vs admin) for each operation, giving some indication of which operations are mutations. However, it does not disclose side effects such as reversibility, confirmation requirements, or the permanence of deletions. With annotations providing only openWorldHint, the description partially covers behavioral transparency but leaves important aspects unstated.

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 concise and well-structured, opening with a clear purpose and then listing operations with access levels. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary detail. The list is slightly redundant with the enum but adds access context, so it earns its place.

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?

The tool has nine operations but the description provides only names and access levels, not parameter requirements or return structures. It explicitly defers all parameter details to yougile_help, making the description not self-contained. With no output schema and sparse annotations, an agent cannot construct a valid call without consulting another tool.

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 description adds minimal parameter meaning; it repeats the instruction to call yougile_help, which is already in the schema's params description. It does not explain what each parameter means or how they map to operations, and the confirm parameter is not mentioned. With 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate but instead defers entirely to another tool.

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 resource ('Projects and project roles') and enumerates the operations (list, get, create, update, roles CRUD), which distinguishes it from siblings like tasks or boards. However, it does not elaborate on what each operation does beyond the operation name, so it is clear but not fully detailed.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention other tools or provide context for when project management is needed. The only directive is to call yougile_help for parameters, which is not usage guidance.

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