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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true; the description adds meaningful context beyond that — that the change is persistent, that it affects all subsequent project-file operations, and that the path refers to the remote desktop rather than the chat device. It stops short of saying what happens on an invalid or non-existent path, or what state is lost when the setting is changed, which is a real gap given destructiveHint=true.

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 mutation and its scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the usage caveat and alternatives following. All four sentences do work, though the trailing pointer to list_project_files/get_project_file is slightly tangential to a setter and could be trimmed.

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 persistent-setting mutation with no output schema, the description covers persistence, downstream effect, and locality of the path — the essentials an agent needs. It leaves open whether the folder must already exist, what happens on failure, and how the 'receiving Desktop application' is chosen among multiple computers (list_computers/select_computer exist as siblings).

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented with the same 'on the computer running Blender Bridge Desktop' wording, so the schema carries the load. The description reinforces the remote-vs-local distinction, which is helpful but largely duplicative of the schema text. Baseline 3 applies when coverage is this high.

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-plus-resource ('Change the receiving Desktop application's configured project folder') and names the exact object being changed. It is clearly distinct from the inspection siblings (list_project_files, get_project_file) it references, so an agent can separate it from the read-only folder tools without opening a schema.

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?

It states an explicit gating condition ('use only when the user requests a different project location') and then names the alternatives for the adjacent tasks (list_project_files to inspect, get_project_file to retrieve). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are spelled out.

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