glm_5_context_manage

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It notes that 'Contexts never include API keys', which is a useful safety guarantee. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as persistence scope, concurrency effects, or required permissions.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits essential details like what a context contains, how it interacts with project paths, and how tags are used. The tool's role in workflow or project management is unclear.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter roles. It only mentions the tool's overall actions and fails to describe how parameters like name, content, contextId, or tags relate to specific actions. The action enum is self-explanatory, but other parameters remain undefined.

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 the tool performs CRUD operations on 'reusable local project contexts', with a specific verb list. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'inspect_project_context' which may overlap for read operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inspect_project_context' for read-only access. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it.

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