Set project defaults

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

Beyond the idempotent annotation, the description discloses the destructive replacement semantics: omitted keys are cleared, {} clears all, and existing projects are unaffected. It also names the return shape ({ ok, projectDefaults, hint }), which is valuable with no output schema.

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 compact sentences front-load the replacement behavior, then cover clearing semantics, a prerequisite, an alternative tool, and the return value with no filler.

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 single nested-object parameter with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description supplies the missing replacement semantics, prerequisite, sibling routing, and return shape. Nothing essential for correct invocation is omitted.

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%, so the nested property definitions already explain individual setting keys. The description adds the crucial whole-object replacement rule ('Send the whole set you want: keys left out are cleared, {} clears all'), which the schema does not make explicit, though it does not discuss every parameter individually.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Replace the settings every new project starts with') and immediately scopes it: existing projects keep theirs. It distinguishes this tool from the closely related get_project_defaults and set_default_bumper by name.

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?

It explicitly says to read get_project_defaults first, explains that intro and outro belong to set_default_bumper, and clarifies the alternative behavior for existing projects. That is direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance rather than implied context.

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