Open property sheet

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing UI side effects: a hidden info window is shown for the running session only, the element is selected and scrolled into view, and the selection change is part of the result. It also states there is no undo step and no change to the project, which is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every sentence carries information, but the phrasing is a little chatty ('the selection is part of the picture') and the trailing sentence about rillsoft_property_panel_get is a structural afterthought.

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?

With an output schema present and covered by the 'answers like rillsoft_property_panel_get' note, return values need no explanation; purpose, session scope, side effects and the write-tool boundary are all covered. It omits failure behavior for an unknown uuid or tab name, which an agent would need before calling blind.

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 100%, so the schema already documents tab, uuid and number in detail. The description only restates the optional named tab and implies uuid defaults to the main project; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource ('Shows a task, a subproject or the project in the property sheet of the info window') and scopes it against the writing siblings by declaring itself 'purely navigational'. An agent can distinguish it from rillsoft_property_panel_get and rillsoft_property_panel_close without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes value changes to rillsoft_task_update / rillsoft_subproject_update and the other writing tools, and cross-references rillsoft_property_panel_get for tab names and response shape. It gives clear context but never states when to prefer this over rillsoft_property_panel_get or rillsoft_row_selection_apply as alternatives.

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