Set Context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Upsert' explicitly communicates create-or-overwrite behavior, and the project scoping is stated. It doesn't cover persistence, visibility, or failure modes, but the core mutation behavior is transparent.

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 filler: the first front-loads the action, resource, and upsert behavior; the second provides the proactive trigger. 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 relatively simple setter tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description gives purpose, usage trigger, and upsert semantics. It could additionally clarify optional-project behavior or point to get_context, but the agent has enough to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents key, value, project, and category. The description reinforces the meaning of key/value by listing context examples, but it adds no new parameter syntax, dependencies, or relationship details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Set') plus a resource ('key-value context pair for a project') and adds the upsert semantic. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_context and from note/decision tools.

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?

It gives explicit proactive when-to-use guidance with concrete examples such as architecture decisions, config values, conventions, and constraints. It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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