set_phase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context about the effect on task scoping ('Only tasks in this phase are considered in scope'), which implies that tasks in other phases become out of scope. However, it does not mention other side effects, such as whether the previous phase is overwritten, if the phase must be predefined, or any permission requirements. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, purposeful sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Set the current active development phase') and follows with one clarifying clause about scope. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, one required, output schema present), the description is largely complete. It communicates the core action and the key scoping consequence. However, it could have been slightly more complete by noting whether a phase must already exist before setting it, which would help agents avoid errors. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, so this is not a major gap.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but since the schema adequately explains phase_name, path, and description, the description does not need to compensate. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 function with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('current active development phase'), and immediately distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools like get_current_phase, next_phase, and list_phases by adding the scoping implication: 'Only tasks in this phase are considered in scope.' This makes it unambiguous.

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 on when to use the tool: whenever you need to change the current active development phase and thus redefine what is 'in scope.' However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives like next_phase or complete_phase, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., that the phase must already exist). This is a bit shy of full usage guidance.

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