Project status

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false as bare booleans; the description earns its keep by explaining why — every call may log usage, expire transient records and upload owed checkpoints. That resolves what would otherwise look like a mismatch between 'status/health' framing and a destructive annotation, and it warns the agent that a read-looking call has persistent side effects.

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 sentences, no waste: the first sells the payload, the second routes usage and discloses side effects. Front-loaded with the value proposition rather than preamble.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of telling the agent what comes back by enumerating the state dimensions, and it discloses mutation side effects that the annotations only hint at. The remaining gap is behavioral detail around the inferred projectRoot default, which would matter for a tool that acts on a project.

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 has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries its meaning and the baseline is 3. The description adds no clarification of the "inferred" default value in projectRoot — e.g. inferred from what context — which is the one parameter question an agent would actually have.

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 resource and enumerates exactly what the answer contains (rbook:// address, dashboard, auth tier, sync, delivery, upload state), so the agent knows the shape of the output. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from rbook_review, which is a plausible source of overlap given the sibling list.

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?

"Use it to diagnose setup, sign-in or sync" gives a concrete trigger, and "rbook_review covers the work itself" names the boundary against one sibling. It stops short of the full sibling set — rbook_auth and rbook_project plausibly overlap with the 'auth tier' and project-level angles, and no exclusion is given for those.

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