vk_put_projects_90ea1375caf6

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does mention authentication requirements, parameter alias conventions, and that path/query parameters are top-level fields. However, there is an internal contradiction: it calls the body 'optional' while the schema lists it as required, and it says 'Project ID Required' though the schema does not require id. This inconsistency undermines transparency and could mislead an agent about required inputs. No information about return values or side effects is given.

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 relatively short (four sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. It avoids excessive detail but includes a slight redundancy: 'Add a team to a project' and 'Gives a team access to a project' convey similar meaning. Most sentences carry useful information, so it is efficient overall.

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 tool is a simple proxy, but as a mutating operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover typical invocation concerns. It explains authentication, parameter placement, and alias handling, which is a good foundation. However, it omits response format, error scenarios, and any safety notes, and the internal requiredness contradiction leaves the agent with an incomplete and somewhat inconsistent picture. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds value by clarifying that body contains the JSON payload and that parameter names accept camelCase/snake_case aliases, which is useful beyond the schema. However, it also introduces confusion about the body's requiredness, detracting from the semantic clarity. Overall, it adds some meaning but is partially offset by the inaccurate 'optional body' phrase.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a team to a project' and 'Gives a team access to a project.' It also identifies the exact REST endpoint ('PUT /projects/{id}/teams'), which distinguishes it from the many sibling vk_put_projects_* tools that likely target different endpoints. The purpose is unambiguous and self-contained.

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 provides context by labeling the tool a 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy' and specifying the endpoint, implying it is for low-level access. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over higher-level vikunja_* alternatives (e.g., vikunja_add_label_to_task) or other vk_put_projects_* variants. Usage context is implied but not fully mapped; no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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