platform_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that delete is a destructive operation requiring confirmation (the confirm parameter exists in the schema but is not referenced in the description), nor does it describe side effects, permissions, or return formats. The description is purely operational, leaving an agent unaware of safety implications beyond what the schema hints at.

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 paragraph but includes a broad, generic opening line ('Arch creates and changes projects, agents, tools, configuration, versions, and deployments.') that is not directly relevant to managing projects and wastes tokens. The action list is functional but could be formatted more clearly (e.g., bullet points). It is adequately sized but not front-loaded optimally; the core purpose statement comes after the generic preamble.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 actions, 6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the action set and parameter usage but omits important operational details: what list returns (e.g., pagination), what get returns, error handling, or the need to set confirm=true for delete (which is only in the schema). The description is adequate for a simple CRUD tool but leaves gaps that could affect correct invocation.

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 83%, which is high, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by mapping parameters to actions (e.g., 'name required for create', 'projectId required for get/delete/update', 'entryAgentName only for update'). This contextual pairing helps an agent know which parameters to fill for which action. The description also mentions that entryAgentName can be set to null to clear, reinforcing schema details. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 'Manage projects on the platform' and enumerates the actions (list, get, create, update, delete). This distinguishes it from siblings focused on other resources. However, the opening sentence about Arch creating agents, tools, configurations, etc., broadens scope unnecessarily and could confuse an agent about the tool's exact resource boundary. Still, the core purpose is specific and clear enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like platform_project_builder or platform_project_builder_operations. It only lists actions and parameters without any context such as 'use this for basic CRUD' or 'for complex builds, use platform_project_builder.' No exclusions or routing cues are present.

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