Add Project

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

Annotations are minimal (no readOnly, destructive, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It discloses behavioral traits: creation action, need for accuracy, coaching on project recognition, and prohibition of fabrication. No contradictions.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and key guidelines. The coaching section is verbose but valuable. Every sentence earns its place, though slightly longer than ideal.

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 12 parameters, 6 required, and no output schema, the description covers the full workflow: duplicate checking, data completeness, date accuracy, professional writing, and coaching. It equips the agent to handle incomplete user input and edge cases.

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 contextual instructions but no new parameter details beyond the schema. The coaching and guidelines are about usage, not parameter semantics.

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 'Add a project to the user's portfolio' and differentiates from siblings like get_projects and update_project. The verb and resource are specific, and the coaching section further clarifies the tool's scope.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: check existing projects first, ask user for missing info, confirm dates, write professional descriptions, and includes coaching on what counts as a project. This helps the agent decide when and how to use the tool.

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