set_project_meta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only indicates a mutation ('update') but fails to disclose side effects, error conditions, default behaviors, or return values. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single concise sentence that quickly conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly improved by listing parameters more explicitly for clarity.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks context on parameter interactions, default behavior when omitting parameters, potential errors, and expected outcomes. A more comprehensive description is needed for reliable agent invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It names the parameters at a high level (name, geometry name, texture resolution), which adds context beyond the schema names. However, it doesn't explain units, optionality, or constraints for texture_width and texture_height, nor the exact meaning of geometry_name.

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 action (update) and the resource (open project's meta: name, geometry name, texture resolution). It distinguishes well from sibling tools which focus on adding, deleting, or exporting. However, it could be more precise about what 'geometry name' and 'texture resolution' entail.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, when not to use it, or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit cues.

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