Prepare Project Resume

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Package creation never advances the sync cursor', 'Effect: canonical mutation', idempotency key behavior, human approval not required, and detailed failure handling. No contradictions with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false).

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 well-structured with clear sections ('Use when', 'Do not use when', 'Requires', 'Effect', 'Human approval', 'Then', 'On failure'). Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, appropriate for the complexity of the tool.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, 6 required, output schema exists), the description covers usage conditions, behavioral effects, failure modes, and idempotency details. It provides sufficient information for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke the 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 description coverage is only 18%, meaning most parameters have no schema description. The main description does not directly explain individual parameters like 'connectionId', 'scopeType', 'taskId', etc. While the description provides overall context, it fails to add meaning to each parameter beyond what little the schema provides.

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 starts with 'Use when: Create a task-bounded ContextPackage with an included/excluded/warning manifest', which provides a specific verb and resource. It also includes explicit exclusions ('Do not use when...'), clearly distinguishing the tool from siblings like 'review_project_delta' or 'propose_wiki_changes'.

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 explicitly states when to use ('Use when') and when not to use ('Do not use when') with specific conditions. It also lists prerequisites: 'Requires: authenticated API authority and an API-authorized selected Project'. This provides comprehensive guidance beyond typical descriptions.

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