add_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects or behavior. It only says 'Register a new OpenAPI service' without mentioning whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if a project with the same ID exists, or if any permissions are required. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that effectively communicates the core purpose with minimal waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple creation tool.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to convey basic behavioral context like return value or side effects. It does not. While the schema covers parameter meaning, the overall context is incomplete for an agent to understand the full impact of invoking this tool.

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 already provides clear descriptions for all three required parameters ('Display name', 'URL to OpenAPI spec', 'Unique project identifier'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Register') and the resource ('a new OpenAPI service'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are mostly read-only operations like list_projects and describe_api.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned, but the verb 'Register' and the contrast with the read/diff sibling tools imply this is for creating a new project/service. The usage context is reasonable to infer, though not stated.

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