Switch Project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., changing the active project context for subsequent operations), prerequisites (e.g., the target project must exist), or any state changes expected. This is a significant gap for a state-modifying tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It earns full marks for conciseness and clarity.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, full schema coverage, output schema exists), so the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context about what 'switching' entails (e.g., changing the working project for subsequent Panel Todo operations), making it incomplete for an AI agent trying to understand the tool's full impact.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter 'projectId' with a clear description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional context or syntax beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Switch') and a clear resource ('different Panel Todo Pro project'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listProjects or createProject by focusing on changing the active project.

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 implies when to use the tool (to switch projects) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like listProjects or createProject. There are no exclusion criteria or context signals beyond the direct instruction.

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