Set Focus Tool

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

The only annotation is idempotentHint, so the description carries most of the burden; it discloses team-wide dashboard visibility and that empty text clears the focus, which are meaningful behavioral facts beyond the schema. It does not address permissions or whether an existing focus is silently replaced.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its visible consequence. The clearing rule is slightly duplicated against the schema, but nothing is padded.

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 small 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and clearing behavior. The parameter interplay (session wins over repo, project fallback) is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but is the remaining 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the empty-to-clear semantics and the session-over-repo precedence, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Empty text clears it' restates the schema rather than adding new parameter meaning.

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+resource ('Sets what the person is working on right now') and adds the visible effect (shown to the team on the dashboard). It implicitly separates itself from heavier logging tools via 'no full update needed', but never names a sibling tool outright.

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?

'Use it when the person starts on something new; no full update needed' gives a clear trigger condition and implicitly excludes the full-update path. It stops short of naming the alternative (e.g. log_update/update_task) or stating when not to use it.

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