project_use

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action but does not mention side effects (e.g., overriding previous active project, persistence across sessions), authentication requirements, or the nature of the 'local keystore'. This lack of detail leaves the agent uninformed about important behavioral aspects.

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 concise with a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without losing conciseness.

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 required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the scope and side effects of setting the active project, which could be important for an agent to understand the full impact of the operation.

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 is only one parameter (project_id) with schema coverage of 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The parameter is self-explanatory from the schema description.

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 resource ('active/default project in the local keystore'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_projects or rename_project by specifying the unique purpose of setting the active project locally.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., project_get). It does not explain prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The agent is left without any usage hints.

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