cantrip_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 clearly describes the three actions and their effects (e.g., delete removes 'all its data'), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to dependent data beyond 'all its data'. For a tool with destructive operations and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral 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 efficiently structured with a brief opening statement followed by bullet points for each action, each explaining purpose and default behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (multiple actions including destructive operations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic actions and defaults but lacks details on permissions, error responses, or return formats. For a tool with delete functionality and no structured safety hints, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the default action and connected project behavior, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool manages projects with three specific actions (list, update, delete), providing a verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on project management, unlike tools like cantrip_connect or cantrip_history. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., cantrip_entity_edit might overlap in editing functionality).

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 provides clear context for when to use each action (list for listing all projects, update for modifying name/description, delete for removing projects). It also specifies default behaviors (connected project unless slug provided). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like cantrip_entity_edit for editing entities, or provide explicit alternatives for project management tasks.

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