Set Project Role

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds an explicit 'Idempotent' statement, reinforcing the annotation. No additional behavioral context (e.g., authorization, side effects) is provided, but the annotations carry the burden well.

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 minimal: two sentences plus a structured args/returns list. Every element is necessary and front-loaded with the primary purpose. No wasted words.

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 simple three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It states idempotency and the return type, which is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by listing parameters with examples for 'role' (admin, developer, viewer) and a 'Returns' line, slightly augmenting schema information.

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?

Clearly states the action (set) and the resource (user's role for a project), with idempotency noted. Distinguished from sibling tools like set_org_role or set_env_role by specifying 'for a specific 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?

The description implies usage for project-specific role assignments but does not explicitly compare to alternative tools (e.g., set_org_role, set_env_role) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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