add_related_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the temporary, session-only nature of the addition, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention success/failure behavior, side effects, or error conditions, leaving gaps.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a clear instruction. No redundant words.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, temporary validity, and required input format. Yet it omits return behavior and potential errors, which is moderate for this complexity.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, and the description adds context by clarifying that the URL should be for the started search-docs server. This reinforces the URL parameter's meaning but adds limited extra detail beyond what 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 clearly states it temporarily adds a related project, valid only during the session, and instructs to specify the target project's started search-docs server URL. This distinguishes it from sibling list_related_projects and other tools with the explicit 'add' verb.

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 by instructing the user to provide the URL of a running search-docs server, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_related_projects. The session-only scope and need for a started server are mentioned, but no explicit comparison is given.

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