set_target_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool sets a target user for reviews and mentions auto-detection as a fallback, which adds context. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like whether this is a persistent setting, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens on invocation (e.g., error handling). The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by context and auto-detection details. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying usage without redundancy, making it efficient 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It explains the purpose and some usage context but lacks details on behavioral aspects like return values or error conditions. Without annotations or output schema, more information on what happens after setting (e.g., confirmation message) would improve completeness, leaving gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('target_user' and 'project_path') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that 'target_user' is used for reviews and auto-detection occurs if not set, but this doesn't enhance the schema's details. With high coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra value.

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 purpose: 'Set who the target user of this project is.' It specifies the verb ('Set') and resource ('target user'), and explains the function ('used by the customer perspective in reviews to give feedback as that specific type of user'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'review' or 'coach', which might involve user perspectives, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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 implied usage guidance: it mentions that the target user is 'auto-detected from README/CLAUDE.md if not set manually,' suggesting this tool is for manual override. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., when auto-detection fails or for specific review contexts), and no exclusions or sibling tool comparisons are provided, so it's not fully explicit.

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