key_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'set' without revealing whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires authentication, or has side effects. It does not describe the expected behavior beyond the immediate mutation, leaving the agent with no insight into potential risks or effects.

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 extremely brief, which could be seen as concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It lacks structure, front-loading of critical details, or any substantive content. The single sentence does not earn its place because it offers no useful information beyond the tool name.

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 has two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the parameters, the expected output, or any related context. An agent has virtually no information to correctly invoke this 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'root' (an integer 0-11) or 'mode' (major/minor). Without any elaboration, an agent cannot understand what values to pass or why they matter, making the parameters ambiguous.

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 'Set the project key.' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'key_set'. It does not provide any additional specificity about what 'project key' means (e.g., musical key, hash key, or session key), nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools like audio_detect_key or theory_scale. It adds no informational value beyond the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool should be chosen over sibling tools such as audio_detect_key or theory_scale. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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