Set this project’s default account/folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly states that it writes to or updates a file in the current directory or up the tree, which is important behavioral info. However, it does not disclose potential authorization requirements, return values, or how missing files are handled, leaving some gaps.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds necessary context. There is no redundant information or padding.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the what, where, and how of setting defaults, including how to resolve a folder by name. It doesn't mention the sibling 'get_project_config' for reading current defaults, but that's not critical for using this tool.

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?

Input schema descriptions already cover 'folder' as URL or id and 'account' as email, providing 100% coverage. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the folder-by-name workflow (search_drive first) and clarifying that defaults apply to 'new docs,' plus indicating the optional 'and/or' nature of the parameters.

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 uses specific verbs 'Write' and 'Set', names the exact resource ('.gdocs-mcp.json') and clearly states the purpose of setting a default account and folder for new docs. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_project_config' by indicating a write operation rather than a read.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (setting project defaults for new docs) and gives explicit prerequisite guidance: 'To set a folder by name, search_drive for it first and pass its id.' However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives for reading the config.

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