server_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the auth prerequisite (DINGCARD_SERVER_URL plus a DINGCARD_SERVER_TOKEN carrying drafts permission) and the key mutation semantic that save without projectId creates a new work while supplying an open-returned projectId overwrites that existing one. It stops short of error behavior, rate limits, or what overwriting destroys, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with a clear action-by-action structure, and the resource definition is front-loaded before the parenthetical action breakdown. It is information-rich rather than padded, though the nested parentheses and multi-clause action list make it heavier to parse than necessary.

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 9-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: auth setup, per-action semantics, return-type branching, and overwrite behavior. The remaining gaps (includeDocument default, documentPath/document alternatives) are adequately handled by the fully-covered 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning where the schema is weakest — the action enum is documented only as '要做的操作', and the description instead spells out what each of list/open/save accepts and returns. It says nothing about includeDocument, documentPath, or document, leaving those entirely to the schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it manages works stored in a Dingcard server account, with three named operations (list/open/save), and explicitly distinguishes editor-saved works from AI-continued ones. It also names the downstream tools each result type feeds into (inspect_document / apply_actions / render_document / share_document for canvas, render_markdown for Markdown), so an agent can place it precisely among the 21 siblings.

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?

Usage is explicit and sequenced: list is called out as 'the first step to continue an existing work', open loads by id, save writes back with or without projectId. The description also gives the routing rule for two alternatives (free-canvas vs Markdown works) and says which sibling to hand each envelope to.

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