projects_use

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: resolves project, stores or exchanges credentials, returns profile name/org/URL/auth method. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so adequately, though it could mention if existing profile is overwritten.

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 efficient sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by process details and prerequisites. 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 no output schema and 3 params, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, behavior, and return values. It is complete for setting an active profile but could elaborate on output structure or side effects like overwriting.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter, such as the automatic token generation for apiKey. No significant extra meaning is added.

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 'Connect to a project and save it as the active profile' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like projects_create or projects_list.

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?

It provides prerequisites (active billing account via accounts_use, project must be Active from projects_list) and the outcome (targets cli commands). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct alternatives.

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