open_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the word 'Register' is consistent with that state-changing profile, so there is no contradiction. The description adds the notion of re-registering a relocated folder but stays silent on error behavior (e.g. missing/invalid path) or what the registration actually changes.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the qualifying scenario trailing it. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is close to under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 one fully documented parameter plus annotations cover most of the surface. Still, for a state-mutating tool the description omits failure conditions and any distinction from create_project, which an agent needs to choose correctly.

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 100%, so the single 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description only restates that the path is a folder of an existing project, adding no format, validation, or relative-vs-absolute detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Register) and resource (an existing project folder), which is more precise than the bare name. The phrase 'existing project folder' implicitly distinguishes it from create_project, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 clause 'for example after it was moved or copied from elsewhere' gives a motivating scenario, which implies when to use it. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not point to create_project as the alternative for new projects, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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