update_project_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, what happens to existing content, or if changes are reversible. It also doesn't mention side effects, rate limits, or response format, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.

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 the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and poor parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context and parameter details needed for safe and effective use. It's minimally adequate but with clear gaps in a mutation context.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter has documentation in the schema. The description only mentions 'specific section' and implies content update, but doesn't explain what 'section' refers to (e.g., a heading, an ID, a file path) or the format/constraints for 'content'. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter names, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb ('Update') and the resource ('specific section in project_knowledge_index.md'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'create_project_structure' or 'store_memory', which might also involve knowledge base operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone. This lack of explicit guidance limits its effectiveness in tool selection.

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