set_project_path

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

Annotations already cover idempotence and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the change is session-scoped and becomes the default for all subsequent tool calls. This clarifies the stateful effect beyond what annotations convey.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and behavioral consequence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter configuration tool, the description covers what the tool does, when to call it, its session-scoped behavior, and its effect on subsequent calls. The schema covers parameters, and annotations cover idempotence/safety, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema fully documents both 'path' and 'validatePath'. The description does not add parameter-level details, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('set') and clearly identifies the resource ('active project path') and scope ('for the current session'). It also distinguishes itself from alternatives by noting it avoids server restarts or environment variable changes.

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?

Explicitly instructs calling at the start of a session and explains the purpose: switching between projects without restarting the server or modifying environment variables. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a sibling alternative.

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