project_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and explicitly states the side effect scope ('creates only .mdflow/project.json') and idempotency. It does not mention failure modes, but the disclosed behavior is precise and helps an agent anticipate the tool's mutation footprint.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core operation, then add one precise behavioral detail; no 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient to determine how to populate the non-required fields or what includeStructured controls. It covers the basic projectRoot use case but not the full call surface.

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 input schema has no property descriptions and the description adds no meaning for id, name, or includeStructured; only 'existing directory' hints at projectRoot. This leaves the optional parameters semantically opaque.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Register') plus a specific resource ('an existing directory as an mdflow project') and names the exact output artifact, .mdflow/project.json. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools by scope and outcome.

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?

It conveys when to use it: for an existing directory that should become an mdflow project, and the idempotence note tells the agent it can be re-run when the descriptor already exists. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so not a 5.

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