project_set_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses write behavior and the partial update nature, but omits details like authentication requirements, side effects, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds a crucial behavioral detail. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential mutation behavior but does not explain the output or success indications. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description could mention scope or persistence.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter described. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting 'Only provided fields are updated,' clarifying that missing parameters will not reset existing values. This strengthens the semantics.

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 action ('Set or update project context') and identifies the resource ('context is machine-readable state stored in context.json'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'project_create' and 'project_get_context' by specifying partial update behavior.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'project_create' (for initial setup) or 'project_get_context' (for reading). The phrase 'Only provided fields are updated' implies partial update use, but lacks when-not scenarios or alternative recommendations.

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