set_shared_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the write behavior and intended visibility ('so other agents can see your work') and gives value examples, but does not state whether setting an existing key overwrites or errors, nor any permission requirements. This is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a brief introductory sentence followed by a scannable bullet list. Each bullet earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the operational guidance it provides, avoiding fluff.

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?

The description covers the 'why', 'when', and 'what' with examples, and mentions optional project_id behavior. It lacks detail on return values or idempotency, but given the tool's coordination purpose and the schema's richness, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by providing a concrete value example ('{ definition: "interface User {...}", location: "src/types.ts" }') and instructing to 'include rationale' for decisions, which enriches the value parameter meaning.

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 opens with 'Set a shared context item so other agents can see your work', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_shared_context and delete_shared_context by focusing on the 'set' action and enumerating concrete categories.

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?

Provides an explicit 'You SHOULD call this when:' list with concrete scenarios mapped to categories (e.g., 'You create or modify a shared interface/type → category: contracts'). It also explains the coordinating benefit, making it clear when this tool should be used over alternatives.

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