Select the project to work on

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

The description states the tool changes which project is active and can switch projects mid-conversation, which is a state mutation. The annotation readOnlyHint=true claims the tool does not modify state, directly contradicting the described behavior. This is an annotation contradiction.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, followed by necessary context about why this tool matters and when to call it again.

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 single-parameter selection tool, the description covers the main action, the effect on other tools, and usage timing. It omits return value or error behavior, but those are not critical given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.

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 fully documents the single projectId parameter, including its source from list_projects. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, but with 100% schema description coverage the baseline of 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 function: it makes one project the active project. It also differentiates this tool from its siblings by explaining that all other tools operate on the active project and take no project argument, making its role as the state-setter unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage timing: call it once before working with visibility, competitors, prompts, answers, or sources, and call it again to switch projects. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like get_active_project, but the guidance is clear enough.

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