set_focus

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the clear-focus behavior via empty item_ids and the limitation on item_types, but does not explain idempotency, side effects (e.g., overwrites previous focus), or authentication needs. It adds some value beyond the schema but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 concise (two sentences plus bullet list) and front-loaded with the core behavior and limitations. Every sentence adds value. The structure is clean, though the parameter list could be more integrated into the text.

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 (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description covers the essential usage pattern and limitations. It does not explain error cases or the exact meaning of 'focus' in the system, but for a low-complexity tool this is nearly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that item_ids can be omitted/empty to clear focus and that item_types must be 'project' or 'folder', adding crucial semantic meaning. However, it does not clarify whether both parameters must match or if they can be used together for filtering.

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 focuses on projects/folders or clears focus, and it explicitly says it does not support tasks or tags, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_tasks. However, it does not mention the specific verb 'set' vs 'get' to contrast with get_focus, slightly reducing clarity.

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 implies usage when setting focus on projects/folders, and notes what it does not support (tasks/tags), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like get_focus or update_folders. The omission/empty pattern to clear focus is useful but not a full guideline.

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