Start an initiative

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses file creation, AGENTS.md modification, idempotency, and non-overwrite behavior. However, it does not mention potential side effects like need for project existence or file permissions.

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?

All sentences are valuable, but the description is a single dense paragraph. Front-loading is good, but could be more structured with bullet points for readability. Still concise given the detail.

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?

Covers core behavior and usage, but lacks mention of return value or error handling. Without output schema, description should hint at what the tool returns. Also does not specify prerequisites like project existence.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning for 'codename' and 'plan', but does not elaborate on 'project' beyond what schema implies. Still adds value by explaining storage location and use of codename.

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 tool's purpose: to start tracking a multi-session effort by creating a file and updating AGENTS.md. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_initiative, list_initiatives, and update_initiative by explaining its proactive usage and idempotency.

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?

Explicitly tells when to call this tool proactively (when user names a multi-step effort with a codename) and when it's safe to recall (if codename exists, returns unchanged). Also contrasts with waiting for explicit request.

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