vk_put_projects_84202ffc7ce2

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the raw proxy nature, authentication, and parameter aliases, but omits error behavior, idempotency, and response shape. Critically, it calls the body 'optional' while the schema marks it required, which is misleading.

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 five short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds relevant operational detail. There is no filler or repetition.

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 the core purpose, auth, and parameter passing style, but it omits the required body structure and contradicts the schema on whether body is required. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent needs more precise payload details to invoke this correctly.

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 already describes both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful conventions (body field, top-level params, aliases), but the false statement that body is optional contradicts the schema's required field, and the body description gives no detail about its expected structure.

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 action: 'Add a user to a project' and identifies the exact REST endpoint 'PUT /projects/{id}/users'. It also explains the effect ('Gives a user access to a project'), distinguishing it from other project/user operations.

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 gives useful usage context: pass payload in the body field, path/query parameters as top-level fields, camelCase/snake_case aliases, and authentication is required. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not conditions, so it does not earn a 5.

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