Set Story Project Path

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does state that the tool changes the active project and avoids a restart, which is useful. However, it does not mention validation behavior, whether the path must exist, or effects on subsequent operations. For a mutation tool, this is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and includes the key non-restart benefit. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core function and an important operational benefit. It could optionally mention whether the path must exist or how errors are handled, but given the simplicity, it is sufficient.

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%, and the parameter's description already explains that it is a path (absolute or relative to cwd). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema carries the burden. 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 function: 'Set or switch target novel project' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only tool that changes the active project path, and adds the benefit of no server restart needed.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever you need to set or switch the active project. It also highlights a key advantage over alternatives ('without restarting MCP server'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives. That said, the usage context is clear for a simple setter.

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