update_tech_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals side effects ("creates a central registry"), lookup flexibility, and identifier priority (project_id > workspace_path > project_name). However, it doesn't disclose behavior like overwrite semantics, error handling, or reversibility, so it falls short of a 5.

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 long but well-structured with headings (WHEN TO USE, CATEGORIES, BEST PRACTICE) and bullets. Each section earns its place; the repeated "CRITICAL" and "MANDATORY" emphasis is slightly redundant but not excessive.

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 8 params and no output schema, the description covers use cases, categories, lookup behavior, and best practices. It lacks explicit return value details or failure scenarios, but given no output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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%, providing descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the priority order for project lookup, listing category examples, and recommending decision_ref usage—enhancing the schema's static definitions.

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 purpose: "CRITICAL: Record the technology stack used in this project" and "This creates a central registry of all technologies used." It uses a specific verb (record/update) and resource (tech stack), and the mandate distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_tech_stack.

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 an explicit "WHEN TO USE" list covering setup, new dependencies, version changes, infrastructure, databases, testing, and CI/CD. It also gives category examples and best practices, offering clear guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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