editor_set_project_setting

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

The only disclosed behavioral trait is 'auto-saves', which is useful but insufficient. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for explaining side effects, but it omits critical information such as whether the editor must be running, how invalid keys/values are handled, whether existing settings are overwritten, and what the return behavior is.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose in a compact, front-loaded manner. There is no unnecessary verbiage, making it easy to parse.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and schema descriptions, the description is too sparse for reliable use. It leaves critical gaps around key formatting, value semantics, error handling, and runtime requirements. While sibling tools provide some context, the description alone is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 description adds no information about the 'key' and 'value' parameters. It does not explain what a valid project setting key looks like (e.g., dotted path), what value formats are accepted, or how the value is serialized. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description completely fails to compensate for the lack of parameter context.

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 action ('Set'), the target ('a project setting'), and the execution context ('via editor API'). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like editor_set_editor_setting (which targets editor settings) and editor_get_project_setting (which reads).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or how it differs from similar setters like editor_set_editor_setting or write_project_config. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the sparse description.

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