set_workspace_project

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 does disclose a key side effect: project info is stored in .stitch-project.json in the current directory. However, it does not mention whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the project must already exist, or any other effects on the workspace.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the operation and adds the storage detail in the second sentence, with every part contributing useful 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 simple 2-parameter setter with full schema coverage, the description plus schema provides enough information to invoke the tool correctly: what action to perform, where the data is stored, and the required projectId. The main omission is overwrite behavior, but it is not blocking for correct invocation.

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%, with both projectId and projectName already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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, 'Associates', with a clear resource ('Stitch project') and target context ('current workspace/folder'). This clearly indicates a distinct operation from create_project or clear_workspace_project, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 the use case: you want to associate an existing Stitch project with the current workspace/folder. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus clear_workspace_project or get_workspace_project, nor does it mention prerequisites like whether the project must already exist.

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