Set Project Info fields

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotent, so the bar is lower; the description usefully adds that createIfMissing creates a CUSTOM field, that names are matched as exact localized strings, and that results are per-item with a created flag. It omits that existing field values are overwritten and any permission requirements, so not a full 5.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core verb, identifier strategy, and return shape front-loaded; the delete pointer and result-shape sentence both earn their place. Very little waste, though the result-shape detail could arguably live with the tool metadata.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers identifiers, the createIfMissing flag, clear semantics, and the return shape. It could still note overwrite behavior of existing values and any permission/auth context.

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 50% and the description adds real meaning: key is the preferred identifier sourced from get_project_info_fields, name is the localized fallback, and value "" clears the field. These nuances go slightly beyond the field-level schema text.

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 verb (Sets) and resource (Project Info field values), immediately scoping what is being written and even explaining what these fields feed into (autotexts in title blocks/stamps). It is clearly distinguishable from get_project_info_fields and delete_project_info_fields.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_project_info_fields for keys and to delete_project_info_fields for removal, and explains the createIfMissing escape hatch. It does not state when-not to use it versus a generic property setter (set_property_values), but the context is clear enough.

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