setProject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key stateful behavior that it sets the context for all subsequent operations, but it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting an existing context, error behavior for invalid project IDs, or whether the context persists across sessions.

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 a single, front-loaded, and waste-free sentence. It conveys the purpose and scope without any unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, straightforward state-setting), the description is largely sufficient. It explains the core function and its global effect on subsequent operations, though it could be slightly more explicit about the prerequisites or consequences of setting the context.

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 100% (projectId has a clear description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the action ('Set') and the specific resource ('current Dradis project context'), and adds the important scope 'for all subsequent operations,' which distinguishes this from sibling tools like getProjectDetails or createProject.

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 phrase 'for all subsequent operations' implies that this should be called before other project-scoped operations, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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