prepare_directory_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the file/directory structure it creates, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, whether existing content in the folder is preserved, permission requirements, or side effects of overwrite_main.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and its artifacts, with the usage trigger second. No filler; every phrase carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the artifact list is helpful. However, for a tool that writes into an arbitrary existing folder, the lack of parameter documentation and overwrite/side-effect disclosure leaves notable gaps.

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 0% and only bare titles are given for four parameters. The description does not explain prompt, main_code, or overwrite_main at all, and only loosely implies directory, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 (prepare) and resource (a local folder as a project) and enumerates the concrete artifacts created (scripts/, drafts/, prompts/, bwconfig.lua, metadata). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like create_project by scoping to an existing outside folder, though it does not name them directly.

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 context line gives a clear trigger: when the user points at an outside folder and wants it organized for Code Sync. It provides solid when-to-use context but names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer create_project or read_directory_project instead).

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