set_previs_project_target

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important side effect: current approvals are invalidated while history is preserved. It says nothing about permissions, whether the change is reversible, what 'mode' controls, or what the tool returns.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, but it leads with a usage caution rather than what the tool does, and the brevity reads as under-specification rather than efficiency for a mutation with three bare parameters.

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?

A state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, zero parameter documentation and an undefined 'target' leaves too much for an agent to safely invoke; the approval-invalidation note is the only substantive content.

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% and all three parameters (mode, pod_id, project_id) are undocumented titles only. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, not even which values mode accepts or when pod_id should be supplied, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a verb ('Change') and an object ('the target'), but 'target' is never defined and the tool name suggests a previs project target without ever saying what is being set. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as choose_execution_mode or verify_runpod_target, so an agent must infer the relationship.

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 clause 'only when requested' implies a usage restriction (do not do this proactively), which is real guidance, but it names no alternatives and no preconditions such as verifying the target exists or the project state required.

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