set_current_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 not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, whether it validates the directory, or what side effects occur (e.g., changing session state). The only additional behavioral note is the timing 'at session start', but that is more usage context than behavior.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no extraneous detail. Every word earns its place.

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 1-parameter setter with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It tells when to use it but leaves gaps about the effect of setting the context, error handling, or whether the tool is idempotent. Given the lack of annotations, a bit more explanation would improve completeness.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, but the parameter description 'project_dir parameter' is tautological and adds no meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter either. The parameter name 'project_dir' and type 'string' provide basic semantics, so this meets the baseline but adds little value.

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 tool's action with a specific verb 'Set' and a resource 'current project context'. It is distinguishable from sibling get_current_project, which retrieves the context. However, 'project context' is somewhat vague and could be more explicit (e.g., 'Set the active project directory').

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?

Provides a clear usage directive: 'Called at session start with $PWD.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or explicitly exclude other scenarios. Still, the context is clear and practical.

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