Set projects

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by spelling out exactly what destruction means: omitted projects are removed. It also implies idempotence (pass the whole list). It doesn't note side effects on existing sessions or auth requirements, but the destructive mechanics are well disclosed.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, purpose front-loaded, and each clause adds usable information (scope, replace semantics, id retention). No filler.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool with annotations already covering safety, the description supplies the essential replace/keep/remove semantics. Minor gaps remain around the unmentioned area and repos fields and downstream effects on existing sessions.

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 0% for a single, nested array-of-objects parameter. The description clarifies the id field ("pass existing ids to keep them") and name/hints for editing, but the area enum and repos field are documented nowhere. It partially compensates but leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

States a specific verb ("Replace") and resource ("the list of other projects"), and defines that resource concretely (paid work, other products, life routines) with its effect (sessions count as other work or life, not goal work). It implicitly distinguishes this from goal work, though it does not name a specific sibling tool.

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 gives clear operating instructions for the replace semantics: leave an item out to remove it, change name/hints to edit, pass existing ids to keep. That tells the agent how to invoke it correctly. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over alternatives like set_goal or set_levers.

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