memo_focus_set

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions journaling with the acting agent's identity and that the change replaces the previous focus. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, and the description reinforces idempotency by stating 'safe to repeat'. This adds useful context about journaling.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, and subsequent sentences add key behavioral details (replaces, journaled, safe to repeat). No unnecessary words, well-structured and front-loaded.

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 low complexity, the presence of full schema descriptions, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is complete. It covers the core behavior, idempotency, and journaling, which suffices for this straightforward 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., project, summary, actor_id). It only elaborates on the overall behavior, not individual 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 clearly states 'Set the current focus for a project' with a specific verb and resource. It explains that it replaces previous focus, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool memo_focus_clear, which clears focus. Thus, purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 usage for setting focus and notes it is safe to repeat, which provides some guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memo_focus_clear or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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