mcp-github-project-manager

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Unarchive') and outcome ('Brings back'), but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to the item's previous state, or any rate limits/errors. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that directly address the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently adds clarifying context.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral traits like permissions or side effects, or expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies project state, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it 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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It mentions 'project' and 'item' but doesn't explain what 'projectId' and 'itemId' represent, their expected formats (e.g., numeric IDs, URLs), or where to find them. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter semantics beyond basic naming.

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 action ('Unarchive') and target ('an item in a GitHub project'), with the phrase 'Brings back a previously archived item' providing additional context about reversing an archival state. It distinguishes from 'archive_project_item' by specifying the opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other potential alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or constraints. While it implies usage for reversing archival, it doesn't specify conditions like permissions needed, whether the item must be archived first, or how it differs from similar operations like 'add_project_item' or 'update_project_item'.

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