Use Project Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses that this is a stateful linkage whose effects persist ('this folder remembers it') and that future reports, tasks, notes, and time entries are rerouted. It stops short of stating whether a second call overrides the prior project or what happens if the project is unknown.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the session-handling caveat placed after. Phrasing is slightly informal ('and this folder remembers it'), but nothing is redundant.

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 2-parameter, annotation-free stateful tool with no output schema, the description covers action, effect, persistence, and the session/no-session branch. Remaining gaps — error behavior on unknown project and re-link semantics — are modest but real for a tool that mutates routing state.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds genuine workflow meaning by explaining the session parameter's optionality in practice — pass it from the cemainou line, or if absent, repeat project on every later call. That clarifies the consequence of omitting session, which the schema does not.

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 — 'Links this session to a project' — and then describes the concrete downstream effect (reports, tasks, notes, and work time are routed there). It is distinguishable from read-only siblings like project_brief or list_projects, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with set_focus, the closest ambiguous neighbor.

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?

'After the person said which project the work is about' gives a clear trigger condition, and the second sentence covers the fallback path for agents that have no session id. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., re-pointing an already-linked session), but the invocation context is clear.

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