Set project token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key side effects: tokens are written to the user's config file (not the repo), take effect immediately without restart, and apply to all subdirectories. It does not mention overwrite behavior or error conditions, but the stated persistence and scope are valuable beyond a bare 'set token' statement.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and side effects are front-loaded, and every clause earns its place. It is concise without omitting essential information.

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?

For a mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects (persistence, scope, immediacy) and the schema covers parameter details. It does not explain the response format or failure modes, but these are not critical for the agent to call the tool correctly. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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%—every parameter (dir, api_key, base_url) has a description in the input schema. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific details; it only refers to 'project directory' which the schema already explains. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Store a Goby API key') and the resource ('for a project directory'), and explains the effect on subsequent tool runs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools list-project-tokens and remove-project-token by focusing on the set operation, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 clear context that this sets a project-scoped token for all Goby tool runs, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like list-project-tokens/remove-project-token. The 'when' is implied by the purpose but not stated as a comparison, so it falls short of the explicit guidance level.

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