proj_set_parameter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It says the tool sets a parameter and returns a confirmation dictionary, but does not disclose permissions, persistence, overwrite behavior, or whether the parameter must already exist.

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 short and front-loaded: a one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. It has little wasted text, though the Returns line is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists.

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 setter, the description covers the basic arguments but leaves key gaps: no usage guidance, no mutation side-effect disclosure, and no parameter value semantics. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the lack of annotations makes the missing behavioral context more significant.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It only restates property names for name and value ('Parameter name', 'Parameter value') and adds a useful default note for project_path, but gives no format, valid names, or value constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set a project-level parameter.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this from closely related siblings such as proj_set_document_parameter or proj_push_parameters.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual note is that project_path defaults to the active project, which explains a parameter default rather than tool selection.

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