Select active project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It does reveal that the tool changes the active project and accepts partial names, but it does not explain behavior on ambiguous matches, no matches, persistence across calls, or the return value. This is a meaningful gap for a state-changing tool.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately defines the parameter semantics, making it easy to scan.

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 one-parameter selection tool, the description covers the essential purpose and input meaning. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits edge-case behavior and expected results, so it is only minimally complete.

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?

The schema only states that 'query' is a required string, so the description adds useful meaning by clarifying it can be a project id or part of a project name. However, it lacks specifics such as id format, case sensitivity, or how to disambiguate multiple partial-name matches, leaving some ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Choose') and identifies the resource ('the project every other tool works on'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like overleaf_list_projects and overleaf_current_project. It also states the accepted input forms (id or part of a 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 phrase 'every other tool works on' implies this should be called before using other Overleaf tools, but the description does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like listing projects first to find a valid id/name. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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