connect_project_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is to add context beyond those flags. It does so richly: nothing is written without confirm:true, re-running replaces the binding, the absolute root is stored in a gitignored sidecar and never enters the receipt or graph markdown, and repair discards a malformed sidecar. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, trigger context, inference rule, dry-run behavior, replacement semantics, and sidecar storage are each covered in one or two clauses. It is front-loaded with the core action and routes to alternatives early. No filler or repetition of schema text.

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 4 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers all the non-obvious context: the dry-run default, the inference fallback, the replacement behavior, the sidecar location, and the privacy boundary (absolute root never enters receipt/graph/handoff). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to interpret the proposal response.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains that omitting rootPath triggers auto-inference (git repo enclosing the vault, else nearest ancestor with a project manifest), that confirm:true is required to write, and that repair handles a malformed sidecar. It doesn't add detail on projectSlug beyond the schema, but the added rootPath and confirm semantics justify a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase — 'Bind a project node to the local code folder it describes, measure it, and write the source receipt' — and immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming the exact nextAction values and related tools it fulfills. It also contrasts with disconnect_project_source, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('This is what nextAction: connect_source ... asks for'), what happens when confirm is omitted, how rootPath inference works, and how re-running with a different rootPath behaves. It also names the sibling that removes the binding, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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