Select project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key state change — that a project becomes active and that subsequent calls may then omit `project`. It does not state whether the selection persists across sessions, what happens if the id is invalid or unknown, or whether an existing active selection is silently replaced.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the payoff for the caller. No redundant restatement of the name or title, and nothing that could be cut.

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 simple one-parameter state-selection tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers purpose and mechanism adequately. The only real gap is failure behavior for an invalid project id, which is minor at this complexity.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Project id to activate,' which is sufficient for correct invocation. The description adds no further meaning (id format, lookup behavior, error on unknown id) beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Make a project the active one') plus the downstream consequence, so the effect is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with near-siblings like sprite_load_project or sprite_new_project, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the clause 'so later calls can omit the `project` argument' tells the agent why it would call this. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. loading vs. creating vs. selecting a project).

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