create_or_update_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions the basic action (create/update) and merge/replace behavior. It lacks details on potential side effects, permissions needed, or what happens to existing content when merging. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 with only two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action and resource, and the second provides context and usage. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 tool with moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: purpose, usage scenario, and basic behavior. It does not explain return values, but given the simplicity, this is acceptable. Siblings are many but the tool's focus is unique enough.

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 schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description repeats the schema's content description without adding new semantics. Given high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra value.

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 identifies the tool's action (creates or updates) and resource (index.md in .project/), and explains its role as a contract file. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sync_todo_index' or 'manage_project_file', though the focus on index.md makes it distinct.

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 states when to use the tool ('when setting up project structure or updating source mappings'), which is helpful. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about overlap with sibling tools.

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