uselink_set_default_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral side effect (new documents land here), but omits details such as whether the previous default is replaced, permission requirements, or reversibility. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 short sentences. The first states the action, the second provides the key consequence. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple mutation with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the basic purpose and side effect. It lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., project existence, permissions) and behavior on repeated calls, but is minimally viable for a setter.

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 input schema has a single 'id' (UUID) with no description, and parameter coverage is 0%. The description refers to 'this' project, implying the id identifies the project to set, but it doesn't explicitly map 'id' to the project parameter. It adds some meaning but relies on inference.

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 the action ('Make this the user's default project') and explains the consequence (new documents without explicit project land here), distinguishing it from sibling project tools. The verb 'Make' and resource 'default project' are specific and unambiguous.

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 context is clear: use this tool to set the user's default project. The description doesn't mention alternatives, but none are explicit among siblings, and the purpose is self-evident. 'When no explicit project is given' clarifies the behavioral context for document creation.

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