set_context

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool sets session-wide state that persists across subsequent tool calls. This is beyond what annotations (none) or schema provide. It also clarifies that IDs are optional and that the tool changes context rather than performing a one-off action. It doesn't mention whether setting one ID resets the other, but the 'and/or' phrasing covers partial updates.

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?

Three sentences, all informative. The core action is front-loaded, followed by usage timing and the key behavioral consequence. No wasted 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?

For a simple 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, what it does, and the session-wide effect. It could mention whether both IDs are required together or if setting one clears the other, but the 'and/or' phrasing and optional parameters make this reasonably clear.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context that these IDs become the active defaults, but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Set or change the active team and/or project for this session.' It uses a specific verb ('set/change') and resource ('active team/project'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on session-level context rather than listing or fetching data.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this after init_session when you have multiple teams/projects.' It also explains the benefit and behavior: 'Once set, all subsequent tool calls will use these IDs automatically — no need to pass teamId/projectId every time.' This gives clear context and implies when not to use it (when you don't need to change context).

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