QMetry: Set QMetry Project Info

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

The annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond this: the project context persists for the current session, and the operation must be performed before fetching test cases in non-default projects. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 longer than strictly necessary but is well-structured with Toolset, Parameters, Output Description, Use Cases, Examples, and Hints. Content is front-loaded and each section serves a purpose, though some redundancy exists between examples and hints.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the return payload, gives prerequisite context, documents session persistence, and provides examples. An agent has enough information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single projectKey parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value with concrete examples, common project keys like 'UT', 'MAC', and 'default', and guidance to use the same key as in subsequent test case operations.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Set current QMetry project for your account.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling fetch/project-info tools by emphasizing the 'set' action and project-context switching purpose.

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 Use Cases and Hints explicitly state when to use the tool: before test case operations, for batch operations, for configuring default project, and for validating project access. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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