Github Set Project Field

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

The annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds genuinely valuable behavior beyond that: it states that an issue not yet on the board is added first and explains why. It does not cover permission requirements or failure modes, but the side effect that matters most is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by disclosing an important side effect and its rationale.

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?

The description supplies the essential operational context for a 7-parameter write tool: what it sets, how parameters are expressed, and the auto-add behavior. Since an output schema exists and the annotations cover read-only/destructive/idempotence, the missing minute details (permissions, invalid-option errors) do not prevent a competent agent from invoking the tool correctly.

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?

With schema coverage at 29%, only field and option have schema descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the key ambiguity—field and option are human-readable names rather than node IDs—but the other five parameters (project_owner, project_number, repo_owner, repo_name, issue_number) receive no added explanation beyond their conventional identifiers.

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 opening clause names a specific verb and resource: 'Sets a single-select field on an issue's card.' It also clarifies the input style (names instead of node IDs) and distinguishes the operation from nearby siblings like github_add_to_project and github_get_project_fields, so the agent can identify what this tool does at a glance.

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 clearly implies this is the tool to use when a single-select project field needs to be set, and it warns that an issue missing from the board will be added. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as github_add_to_project or state when to use that flow instead, so the usage guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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