set_project_scope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the auto-stamping behavior, session persistence, and clearing mechanism, and specifies the return value. It does not cover potential errors or permissions, but given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

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 concise: two sentences that state the primary action, explain the auto-stamping implication, and define clearing behavior with return value. No extraneous information, every sentence is necessary and 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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, its effect (session-scoped auto-stamping), clearing behavior, and return value. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the parameter beyond the schema: it clarifies that empty string clears the scope and that the parameter sets the default for new entities. This provides semantic context that helps the agent understand when to use specific values.

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 tool's action: 'Set the active project scope for this server session.' It specifies the resource (project scope) and the scope of effect (session). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project_scope (read-only) and clear_project_context (broader clearing) by focusing on setting a specific scope with auto-stamping behavior.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: to set a default project for subsequent operations that lack an explicit projectId, and to clear the scope by passing an empty string. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, which would make it a 5.

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