project_set_design_intent

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true signals potential destructive behavior, and the description does not contradict it. The statement that design intent is 'used by placement, routing, and release-quality gates' adds context about downstream impact, but the description does not disclose whether setting this replaces all existing intent or merges with it, nor any specific destructive 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?

The description is efficiently structured: a concise purpose statement followed by two categorized parameter lists. The parameter enumeration is necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions, and the v1/v2 grouping aids scanning. No redundant filler is present.

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 tool's complexity (16 optional parameters, 0% schema coverage, and many related sibling tools), the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter definitions, behavioral details about overwriting/merging, and integration guidance with get/infer/validate sibling tools. The presence of an output schema and annotations mitigates only slightly.

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?

The description lists parameter names grouped into v1 and v2, and for v2 provides type hints like 'list of PowerRailSpec dicts' and 'MechanicalConstraint dict.' With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to define what these params mean or what fields the dicts require, leaving significant ambiguity for a 16-parameter tool.

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 'Store high-level design intent used by placement, routing, and release-quality gates,' which specifies a verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like project_get_design_intent or project_infer_design_spec, relying on the tool name to convey the setter role.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The v1/v2 parameter distinction explains which parameters apply to which project types, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over project_get_design_intent, project_infer_design_spec, or project_validate_design_spec.

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