clasp_setting

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. 'Manage' gives no information about side effects, whether the operation is safe, what it changes, or under what conditions it succeeds. It doesn't describe read vs. write behavior or file modifications.

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, short sentence with no unnecessary words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It conveys minimal information, which doesn't earn its place in a useful way, though it's not bloated.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what operations are possible, return values, and relevant project state. The current text is incomplete for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (key, value, rootDir), so the description doesn't need to repeat them. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the high schema coverage earns the baseline score.

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 'Manage project settings' identifies a resource (project settings) and a general verb (manage), distinguishing it from sibling tools by topic. However, 'manage' is vague—it doesn't specify whether the tool gets, sets, lists, or deletes settings, so the purpose is only partially clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description doesn't explain context or provide any usage direction beyond the bare phrase.

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