set_remote_path

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds the non-obvious fact that the write lands in projects.yaml rather than creating a directory on the remote host — a real clarification for an agent that might otherwise assume remote filesystem effect. It stops short of noting overwrite behavior on an already-set path.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the field being set, with the persistence target tacked on where it costs nothing. No filler to cut.

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?

Enough to call it correctly, but silent on the behavior an agent would want before mutating shared config: whether an existing value is overwritten, whether the remote path must already exist, and what the tool returns (no output schema). Reasonable but with clear gaps for a config-mutation 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter carries its own example-laden description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that project + environment identify the target and remote_path is the value, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: "Configure the remote deployment destination directory (remote_path)" scoped to a project and environment, and it even names the persistence target (projects.yaml). That distinguishes it from browse_remote_directories and download_remote_file, though it never explicitly separates itself from the similarly named set_target_option.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a setup step before deploy_project, but the description never says when to call it, whether a prior listing via browse_remote_directories is expected, or what happens if the project/environment doesn't already exist.

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