unlock_add_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Add a new token project') without addressing idempotency, duplicate handling, overwrite behavior, or any side effects on existing projects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 of 11 words, front-loaded with the action and object. Every word earns its place, with no filler or unnecessary details.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description is minimal. It does not explain the expected response, required preconditions, or how this tool fits into the broader unlock workflow (e.g., whether projects must be created before adding schedules with unlock_add_schedule). This leaves agents without enough context for reliable multi-step use.

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 100%, with each parameter clearly described (e.g., 'Token contract address', 'Blockchain network'). The description adds the context that the project is for tracking unlock events, which ties the parameters to the use case, but does not elaborate further on parameter behavior, relationships, or formatting. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles parameter explanations.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add'), clearly identifies the resource ('token project'), and states the purpose ('to track for unlock events'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like unlock_get_calendar and unlock_add_schedule by focusing on creating a new project entry rather than querying or scheduling.

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 implies usage when a new token project needs to be registered, but provides no explicit context about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, relationship to unlock_add_schedule, or any exclusion criteria, leaving the agent with only implicit guidance.

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