creo_set_project_working_directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false; the description adds useful context beyond those by explaining it is a compatibility tool, operates on the 'live' session directory, and 'never creates, selects, or changes a folder.' This is consistent with and reinforces the annotations.

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 entire description is one tightly structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and packs in the key clarifications: no side effects, no argument, and current-session scope. Every clause earns its place with 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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent compatibility tool, this description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The annotations cover safety, and the description covers behavior, scope, and the absence of any directory argument, leaving no critical invocation detail missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already conveys all parameter meaning. The description still adds value by explicitly confirming it 'accepts no directory argument,' which is important given the tool's misleading setter-style name.

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 states the specific action ('reads and verifies') and resource ('live working directory already selected in the current Creo session'), and directly corrects the misleading name by clarifying it 'never creates, selects, or changes a folder.' This allows an agent to understand the true scope despite the 'set' in the tool name.

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 clear usage context: it is a compatibility tool for reading/verifying an already-selected directory. It also states a clear exclusion — it never changes the folder and accepts no directory argument — which tells the agent not to use it for setting a directory, though it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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