FogBugz

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

Annotations indicate this is a destructive write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true), which the description aligns with by stating 'Creates'. The description adds context with an example but doesn't detail behavioral aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens on failure, though annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise example that illustrates usage without unnecessary details. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and an example but lacks details on return values, error handling, or system constraints. Annotations cover safety, but more context on outcomes or limitations would improve completeness given the tool's complexity.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description's example mentions 'name' and 'primaryContact', adding minimal semantic context but not compensating for any gaps since there are none. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Creates a new project') and resource ('in FogBugz'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_projects' or 'view_project'. The example further clarifies the tool's function by showing typical usage.

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 implies usage through the example, suggesting this tool is for creating projects rather than listing or viewing them. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'api_request' or prerequisites for project creation.

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