Say what this product is for, so every run knows what it is building toward.
`vision_md` is free-form markdown and must be non-empty. Tenant-scoped: a
project not in the caller's workspace 404s. Returns {project_id,
product_vision_md, updated_at, next_step}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vision_md | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: vision_md must be non-empty, the call is tenant-scoped, and out-of-workspace projects return 404. It also discloses the return object. It does not contradict the destructiveHint flag, though it could have explicitly mentioned that the existing vision is overwritten.
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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds necessary detail: the vision statement, the markdown constraint, tenant behavior, and return fields. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 2-parameter mutation tool with annotations already present, this description is nearly complete: it defines the core purpose, input constraints, tenant scoping, and return shape. It lacks only explicit guidance about overwriting behavior or when to use it relative to siblings, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies that vision_md is free-form markdown and must be non-empty, which adds meaningful guidancechers. However, project_id is only indirectly described through the tenant-scoping noteفق and lacks direct semantic detail.
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 explains what the tool does: it sets the product vision by stating what the product is for and what it builds toward. It uses a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like set_product_goal or get_product_vision.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It mentions a tenant-scoping constraint and 404 behavior, but not when setting vision is appropriate or how it differs from setting the product goal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.