finalize_project_meaning

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

The description discloses precise write behavior: it writes only a small provenance receipt to `.ontology-atlas/project-meaning.json` and explicitly lists what it never stores. It also explains the semantic meaning of `ok: true`, which prevents a common misinterpretation. These details complement the sparse annotations significantly.

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 contributes: sequencing, caller constraints, write scope, exclusions, and result interpretation are all covered without repetition. It is appropriately sized for a tool with subtle semantics.

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 only two parameters and non-trivial side effects, the description fully covers when to call it, what it writes, what it refuses to write, what the result flag means, and where to get the actual assessment. Nothing essential is left to inference, and the output schema is referenced through `meaningAssessment`/`agent_brief`.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds important semantic value by explaining that `expected_mtime` is a conflict guard and that callers cannot submit or restamp server-derived values, reinforcing the role of `projectSlug` and `expected_mtime`.

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 states a specific verb ('Finalize') and a specific resource ('current project competency Markdown'), and it distinguishes the action from related operations by specifying the exact sequence it must follow. It also clarifies the tool's narrow scope: writing a provenance receipt, not compiling or validating.

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 says to use this tool after concept/relation writes, vault validation, and a complete project compile, which gives clear contextual conditions. It also warns that `ok: true` does not verify source currentness and directs callers to `meaningAssessment` or `agent_brief` for the fail-closed result. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the sequencing is specific enough to guide selection.

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