m9k_ignore_project

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

Discloses destructiveHint=true with explanation of persistent effect (future sessions not indexed) and optional purge deleting existing sessions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 wasted words, front-loaded with primary action, then optional behavior.

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?

Completely describes tool's purpose, persistent effect, and optional deletion. No output schema needed for this simple configuration tool.

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 covers parameters fully; description adds practical example (project path) and clarifies the purge option's effect, enhancing usability beyond schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states 'exclude a project from indexing' with verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling m9k_unignore_project by opposite purpose.

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?

Implies usage for ignoring a project but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. However, sibling name suggests opposite usage, so context is clear.

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