project_attach

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses important behaviors: idempotency, delegation through project_ensure, the recording of a lifecycle witness, and explicit non-destructive guarantees. It does not cover permissions or error conditions, but the core side-effect profile is clearly visible.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The first sentence fronts the core action and mechanism, and the second earns its place by adding safety-relevant non-destructive guarantees.

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?

Adequate for a straightforward attach tool: an agent can infer the non-destructive, idempotent behavior and likely call it with project_root and actor. However, there is no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of how this relates to project_ensure and project_detach, leaving lifecycle semantics under-specified.

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 description adds no direct parameter-level meaning. The required 'actor' is only defined by minLength in the schema and is never explained, while project_root and project_id are already documented in the schema, so the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 specific verb ('attach'), identifies the resource ('a local Git project'), and adds meaningful qualifiers: idempotent, via project_ensure, and records a revision-bound lifecycle witness. It is clearly distinct from detach, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling project_ensure, so it stops short of 5.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over project_ensure or project_detach, and no when-not-to-use conditions. The intended operation is stated, but the alternatives are left entirely to inference.

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