init

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

The description discloses the key side effect (arming the session and returning a token) and is consistent with no annotations. It lacks details on potential permissions or failure modes, but for a simple init tool, transparency is adequate.

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 moderately verbose but each sentence adds valuable context (when, when not, alternative). It is structured logically, with no redundancy, making it efficient for the given complexity.

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?

The description covers all necessary context: prerequisites, action, return value, and fallback behavior. It is complete for the tool's purpose and complexity, leaving no gaps for the agent.

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 parameter 'project' is fully described in the schema (absolute path, must exist, user-confirmed). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond referencing it, so it remains at baseline for 100% 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's function: approving an existing project and returning a session token. It also distinguishes it from the sibling create_project, satisfying the verb+resource+distinction criterion.

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?

Explicit when-to-use instructions are provided: call after user @mentions and confirms directory, and when project doesn't exist, use create_project instead. Also includes a never condition, making usage unambiguous.

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