switch_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool can create a new project if it doesn't exist, it isolates TODO data per project, and it is a mandatory prerequisite for creating TODOs. It does not detail additional effects (e.g., whether switching resets some state), but the disclosed information is valuable and accurate.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, mandatory usage, recommendation, and isolation behavior. No redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when it must be used, how to avoid duplicate projects, and the isolation guarantee. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage for projectId with a rich description including naming conventions and a pointer to list_projects. The tool description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Switch to a different project workspace or create a new one.' It distinguishes itself from the TODO-centric siblings by focusing on project workspace management and explicitly mentions data isolation ('Each project isolates its TODO data completely').

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'You must call this tool to set up a project before creating any TODOs.' It also recommends using list_projects first to avoid duplicates, which is a clear alternative/preceding tool. This gives the agent actionable context for sequencing.

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