append_project_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions 'dedup by name' as a behavioral trait. It does not explain whether the tool is idempotent, what happens on conflict (skip or update), return value, or error cases. The version prefix 'v2.1.0' provides no behavioral context.

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 very short and to the point, but includes a version prefix 'v2.1.0' which is unnecessary for tool selection. The core sentence is clear and front-loaded. Slightly less than perfect due to the extraneous version info.

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 four required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks critical context: no mention of return value, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), or how dedup behaves exactly. Incomplete for a mutation tool with no structural guards.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is 3, correct as the description does not need to compensate further.

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 tool appends a documented project command, with deduplication by name. The verb 'append' and resource 'project command' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_project_command' and other append tools (e.g., 'append_project_fact') by specifying the resource type and dedup behavior.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many siblings performing similar append operations (e.g., append_project_fact, append_project_convention), the description offers no context for selection or exclusions. Missing explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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