setup_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses validation actions and config storage as a YAML comment. However, it does not describe error handling, side effects, or return behavior, leaving some 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 extremely concise—two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second details actions and requirements. No unnecessary information; front-loaded and efficient.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior but omits return values and error scenarios. For a configuration tool, understanding success/failure conditions is important, so completeness is adequate but not outstanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that parameters are validated and config is stored as a YAML comment, which goes beyond schema descriptions. This enhances understanding of how parameters are used.

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's purpose: 'Configure a project for PM Agent monitoring.' It details specific actions (validates root epic, board, fixVersions, write permissions) and distinguishes from sibling tools like run_sprint_audit by noting it is a setup prerequisite.

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 'Must be run before any audit tools,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. While it does not mention when-not-to-use or alternatives, the prerequisite nature is unambiguous.

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