set_project_category

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'sets the grouping label' and that 'surrounding whitespace is trimmed' for the category. It also describes the return value. It does not explicitly mention if it overrides existing categories, but 'change' implies that.

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 succinct: four sentences plus structured argument descriptions. It front-loads the main action and provides all necessary information without extraneous content. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the simple tool with 2 required parameters and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how to use it (including calling get_project_categories first), and what it returns. It is complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning: project_id is 'the project_id of the project to update' and category is 'the category label to assign (e.g. 'Article', 'Grant'); surrounding whitespace is trimmed.' This provides examples and behavior beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'Assign or change' and the resource 'project's category', and explains the purpose: grouping on dashboard. It also differentiates from the sibling tool get_project_categories by advising to call it first to reuse an existing label.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Call get_project_categories first to reuse an existing label rather than creating a near-duplicate.' This indicates when to use the tool and a necessary precondition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it beyond that.

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