System

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, but the mixed nature of the bundled operations is never clarified — health_check appears read-only while setup_project_fields mutates project configuration. The description says nothing about what setup_project_fields creates or overwrites, whether it is safe to re-run, or what permissions are needed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation list and followed by the dispatch instruction. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence carries almost no information beyond what the schema already shows.

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?

For a multi-operation dispatcher with no output schema and only 50% parameter coverage, the description should describe what each action does and returns. Instead it only names them, leaving the agent unable to predict behavior or output for either operation.

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 coverage is 50%: `action` has an enum, but `projectId` has no schema description at all. The description does not state that projectId is only relevant to setup_project_fields and can be omitted for health_check, which is the single most useful clarification it could have added.

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 names the two concrete operations (health check and project field setup) and states the dispatcher pattern via the `action` field. It is distinguishable from every sibling (all of which are manage_*/ai_*/agent_* tools), though the umbrella label 'System operations' is vague on its own.

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 only guidance is mechanical: 'Use the `action` field to select the operation.' It never says when an agent should call health_check versus setup_project_fields, whether setup must precede other project work, or what prerequisites exist. The agent must infer the trigger for each action from the enum names alone.

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