project_use

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions validation and storing a pointer, it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether previous active project is overwritten, whether validation makes external calls, or if there are any destructive consequences). Missing details on idempotency, auth requirements, or error behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that encompasses the core action. It is concise (14 words) without any filler, and the key verb 'Server-validate' is front-loaded, making the tool's primary purpose immediately clear.

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 (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks details about validation outcomes (e.g., success/failure indicators) and the scope of 'local profile' (e.g., session persistence). Additional context would improve completeness.

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% (the single parameter 'project_id' is fully described). The description adds overall tool purpose but does not enhance the parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides ('Project ID to set as active'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description is adequate but not additive.

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 tool's two-part action: server-validate a project and store its ID as the active project pointer. It uses specific verbs and resources ('validate', 'store', 'project', 'active project pointer'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like 'project_get' or 'list_projects'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'project_get', 'rename_project', or others that manipulate projects). There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the context from the tool name and description alone.

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