set_project_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the project is reloaded from a patched archive and left unsaved, warns about the side effect, and explains the consequence of a specific setting. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a mutating tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by useful examples and the critical unsaved-state warning. Every sentence adds practical value with 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 tool with one open-ended parameter and no output schema, the description covers what settings look like, how values are typed, and the required follow-up sequence. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and understand the consequences.

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% and the settings object is open-ended, so the description must compensate. It does so with common idents, value type information ('strings', '0'/'1' for booleans), and one concrete semantic example. It is not exhaustive, but this is reasonable for an additionalProperties map.

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 action, 'Set one or more project settings', with the resource domain clearly identified as build/language options. It provides concrete setting idents, making it unmistakably distinct from the sibling get_project_setting.

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?

Provides clear operational context: one or more settings can be set, values are strings, and the project becomes unsaved, requiring build_project and save_project afterward. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternatives like get_project_setting or state exclusions.

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