Sync project registry

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it adds stub rows, preserves hand-curated columns, can report-only with apply=false, and uses the project's description. However, it does not explicitly state whether it modifies existing rows or what happens to flagged missing directories beyond 'flagging'.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. It is somewhat dense and contains minor redundancy (e.g., restating the automation of the 'new project' step), but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, process, and parameter effectively. It hints at output (open-issue counts, flagged missing directories) but does not provide a specific format, which is acceptable for a tool with no output schema.

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 single parameter 'apply' is well-described in the schema, and the description adds contextual guidance on its usage. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description's extra context modestly enhances understanding.

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 verb 'reconcile' and the resource 'root AGENTS.md projects table', detailing the actions: listing projects, adding stub rows, flagging missing directories, and showing open-issue counts. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_projects.

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 description provides a specific use case (automating the 'new project → add a row' step) and explains when to use the apply parameter to report without writing. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the context implies this is for reconciliation.

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