project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so impressively: it discloses side effects (creates `comfy.yaml` + dirs), error behavior (`project_already_exists`), cwd behavior, the one-time read of `COMFY_PROJECT`, and routing details. This is far beyond a basic one-line description.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose first, then action mapping, then environment/cwd caveats, then routing. Every sentence carries relevant information, though the final routing note is slightly cryptic and may require domain knowledge to interpret.

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 and the absence of annotations or an output schema, the description covers setup, side effects, errors, and environment dependencies thoroughly. The only notable gap is the lack of any description of the return value or output format, which an agent may need to interpret results after calling.

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 only lists an `action` property with a default and no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the two meaningful values (`'status'` and `'init'`), their effects, and the recommended order of calling. This is exactly what an agent needs to invoke the parameter correctly.

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 opens with 'Report or create the operator-anchored comfy-cli project', giving a specific verb and resource. It further disambiguates the action parameter by mapping 'status' and 'init' to concrete CLI commands, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does and how it differs from other MCP tools.

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 gives clear context and a sequencing hint: try `action='status'` first before `'init'`, and explains the `COMFY_PROJECT` environment variable and cwd caveat. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but no close sibling exists among the listed tools.

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