project_set_notes_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses important behavior: empty strings are ignored, at least one field must be non-empty, and storage uses specific descriptors (PROJECT_TITLE, PROJECT_AUTHOR). It also clarifies the tie to GetSetProjectAuthor(). This exceeds typical descriptions, though it doesn't mention error handling or return values.

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 succinct and structured. The opening sentence states the purpose, followed by two concise behavioral rules, then a parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 setter with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and key constraints. It does not describe error handling or confirm project context, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides only types and defaults for title and author. The description enriches both parameters by explaining their meaning ('Project title', 'Project author') and the storage descriptors. It also explains the empty-string behavior, giving clear semantic distinction and usage guidance.

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 sets the Title and Author fields of the Project Settings -> Notes tab. It uses the specific verb 'Set' and identifies the exact resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like project_set_notes which likely set the notes body.

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 clear context on what fields it modifies (Title and Author in Notes tab), making its use case apparent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the specificity of 'Title and Author fields' differentiates it from other project metadata tools. The behavioral rule about empty strings also guides correct usage.

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