Set Project Architecture

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains merge vs replace behavior, that dataFlow can be omitted to preserve existing, and warns that new modules still need entries. Could be more explicit about destructiveness and permissions, but covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Description is appropriately sized for the complex tool, front-loading purpose and usage, then covering parameter behavior. Some redundancy but well-structured overall.

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 complexity (6 params, nested schema, output schema exists), the description covers main use cases, parameter interactions, and provides context about projectId validation and subsequent steps. Minor gaps in return value description but compensated by output schema.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning by clarifying the merge/replace semantics for modules and dataFlow parameters, and the purpose of each parameter beyond schema descriptions.

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 creates or updates vertical module structure (components and dataFlow), distinguishing it from horizontal facts. It uses specific verb+resource and differentiates from sibling tools like set-module-details and set-entry.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For one module use set-module-details or set-module-data-flow. For bulk flow rebuild use rebuild-data-flow.' Also advises against using for APIs/scripts and provides fallback for wrong projectId.

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