project_select

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the core action ('set project for session') without mentioning side effects, error handling, persistence, or confirmation. It does not indicate whether it validates the project existence, what happens on invalid input, or whether it returns a value. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured metadata.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It is appropriately brief and well-structured.

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 setter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it omits practical context such as what happens if the project ID is invalid, whether the selection persists across tool calls, and whether there is a way to query the current selection. These omissions leave some ambiguity for an agent deciding how to use the tool safely.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does convey that project_id identifies the project to act on, which is useful. However, it does not explain how to obtain a valid ID (e.g., via project_list) or any format constraints beyond what the schema already provides. The description adds a little context but not enough to fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 a specific action ('Set') on a specific resource ('which project') and clarifies the scope ('later tools act on in this session'). It differentiates itself from sibling project tools like project_list and project_add by framing itself as a session-context setter rather than a data operation.

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 phrase 'later tools act on' implies the intended usage: call this before executing project-aware tools. It implicitly signals when to use it, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'not for listing projects'). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the role, but lacks direct comparison to siblings.

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