upsert_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work here: it clarifies that the operation is a local Hub persistence action and explicitly scopes out remote forge repository mutation. This goes beyond what the schema or input fields reveal. It still doesn't mention idempotency, merge-vs-overwrite behavior, or auth/permission implications, but the local-vs-remote distinction is a valuable disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: a clear definition, a concrete use condition, and a critical boundary clarification. The most identifying information is front-loaded, and nothing is redundant or filler.

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 adequately frames the tool's role and its local/remote boundary, but with ten parameters and no annotations, more context is needed for a complete call. It does not clarify what 'slug' means, how 'forge targeting' parameters interrelate, whether the upsert merges or replaces metadata, or how required title interacts with optional fields. An agent could still be uncertain about which forge-related fields to set together.

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?

Description coverage of the schema is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does map several parameters semantically—title, workspace path, repository, energy, and forge targeting—but it leaves several parameters unexplained (slug, description, forge_wiki_path, forge_owner, forge_project_id). The description helps, but given ten parameters, it only partially compensates for the total lack of schema-level parameter explanations.

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?

Starts with a specific compound verb phrase, 'Create or update a project registry entry and its explicit metadata,' which names both the action and the resource. It also names the specific settings it manages (title, workspace path, repository, energy, forge targeting), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like upsert_progress and delete_project.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when setting title, workspace path, repository, energy, or forge targeting.' It also gives a clear boundary—'persists local Hub project configuration' and explicitly says it does not by itself create, rename, or delete a remote forge repository. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the when/not conditions are clear and useful.

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