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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior with 'wake its sandbox', hinting at resource provisioning/latency, but omits idempotency, whether it replaces an existing binding, and failure modes for invalid IDs.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and carrying the side effect in a trailing clause. 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 one-parameter session-state tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the essentials are present but the scope of 'active' (does it persist across calls? does it affect only this session?) and parameter sourcing are left unstated.

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 0% for the sole required parameter, and the description merely says 'a project' without clarifying whether project_id is an ID, slug, or name, or how to obtain it (e.g., via list_projects). With low coverage the description should compensate but does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Bind a project as active for this MCP session') plus a secondary effect ('wake its sandbox'), which separates it from read-only siblings like get_project or list_projects. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead (e.g., create_project vs update_project).

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this must be called before project-scoped operations, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of what happens if a different project is already active, and no named alternative.

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