set_project_root

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: registering vs. switching, cheap switch vs. forced reindex. This adds significant value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention potential costs like reindexing time or permissions needed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place. No redundancy.

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 simple nature of the tool and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information to use it correctly. It covers both registration and switching cases. Minor gap: does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation or error), but this is acceptable for a side-effect tool.

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 each parameter described. The description adds meaning by explaining the effect of force=true (triggers reindex even if already registered) and clarifying that path is an absolute path. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 registers a new project root and switches to it, and handles the case of an already-registered path with a cheap switch or forced reindex. It distinguishes itself from siblings like switch_project (which likely only switches) and reindex (separate operation).

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 clear context for when to use the tool (registering a new root or switching) and how force=true alters behavior. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like switch_project or reindex, leaving the agent to infer when to prefer those alternatives.

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