set_project_target

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses validation and caching behavior but omits details like error handling on failed validation, overwrite behavior, or return status.

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 main action, no extraneous words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 setup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, prerequisite context, and behavioral notes. It could mention return values or failure modes but is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes 'path' as 'Absolute path to the plugin project root directory.' The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema's parameter description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') with a clear resource ('target WordPress plugin project path') and adds context about validation and caching. It distinguishes itself from siblings which are mainly scaffolding or inspection tools.

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 explicitly states 'Must be called before using project-specific tools,' providing clear guidance on when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude cases but the prerequisite relationship is well communicated.

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