set_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: the override lasts until server restart, and the directory must contain specific required files (game.rmmzproject and data/System.json). This is more than minimal but doesn't detail error handling or side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then caveats. Zero redundant words; every clause adds useful detail.

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 single-parameter setter, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the session scope, and the prerequisites. It doesn't explicitly mention return values, but given the simplicity and absence of an output schema, this is acceptable.

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 baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds extra semantic value by specifying the directory must contain game.rmmzproject and data/System.json, and by clarifying it's a *different* directory. This enriches the bare schema definition.

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 a specific action ('Point the server at a different RPG Maker MZ project directory') and resource ('RPG Maker MZ project directory'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_project or validate_project by focusing on switching the working directory.

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 clear context: it affects the rest of the session and overrides the RPGMAKER_PROJECT_PATH environment variable. No explicit alternatives are named, but the intended use case (changing the active project) is clear.

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