rush_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only names actions without describing side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what configuring a project entails. This leaves the operational impact of the call completely undisclosed.

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 single sentence is short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides no structure to separate the four claimed operations or their differing semantics, so each word adds only vague generality.

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?

Given an opaque schema, absent annotations, a nested request object, and four distinct operations, the description fails to cover nearly all context an agent needs. It omits request formats, operation selection, return values, and constraints, making the tool effectively unusable without external documentation.

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 input schema is an opaque single 'request' object with additionalProperties: true and no property descriptions (0% schema coverage), so the description was the only opportunity to explain the payload. It does not mention the request structure, required fields, or operation-specific syntax, forcing agents to guess.

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 lists four broad verbs ('Register, discover, select, and configure') applied to 'Rush projects', but this is an umbrella statement rather than a specific purpose. Since all sibling tools also operate on Rush projects, this wording does not distinguish rush_project from rush_commit_msg, rush_scan, or others.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives; it neither names sibling tools nor offers decision criteria. An agent cannot determine whether to call rush_project or a more specific rush_* tool for a given task.

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