bridge_set_project_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that it backs up, edits, saves, verifies after reopen, and that undo is not guaranteed, which is meaningful. However, it omits failure behavior, required permissions, and exact scope of the edit, so it remains incomplete.

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 semicolon-delimited sentence that is information-dense and front-loads the main actions. It is concise but could be better structured to separate the edit operation from the backup and undo warning.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide comprehensive context. It fails to name the four fields, explain prerequisites or failure modes, or clarify how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving critical gaps for a mutating operation.

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?

The schema appears to contain no documented properties, and the description mentions 'four native project metadata fields' without naming or describing any of them. This forces the agent to guess the required inputs, leaving parameter semantics largely unexplained.

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 states specific verbs (back up, edit, save, verify) and a resource (four native project metadata fields), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like bridge_project_info or bridge_save_as, so it falls short of a 5.

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 includes a warning about undo not being guaranteed, which is useful context, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bridge_project_info or bridge_save_as. It leaves the agent to infer usage conditions.

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