set_project_field

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

The annotations already signal readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the tool will automatically add the issue to the board if it isn't there yet, and it operates on human-readable names rather than node IDs. This is genuinely useful beyond what annotations provide, though auth/rate-limit details are not covered.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by an important side-effect note. Every sentence contributes necessary information and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the key non-obvious behavior: automatic board addition and name-based field/option selection. It doesn't need to explain return values because an output schema exists. It could mention validation or failure cases, but the core calling context is 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 description coverage is only 29%, with most parameters (repo_owner, repo_name, issue_number, project_owner, project_number) having no description. The tool description only partially compensates by explaining that field and option are names rather than IDs, but it doesn't clarify the five uncovered identifier parameters. Since the schema is mostly bare, the description should have taken on more of the semantic burden.

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 uses a specific verb 'Sets' and identifies the exact resource: a single-select field on an issue's card. It also distinguishes the operation from simple board-add or ID-based APIs by saying it uses field and option names rather than node IDs. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable among siblings like add_to_project and set_issue_milestone.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need to set a single-select field on an issue card, providing the field and option by name. It also clarifies the when-to-use case for issues not yet on the board by stating they are added first. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the use case is sufficiently clear to route an agent correctly.

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