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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description only reinforces the session scope ('for the current session') and does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive or that it mutates context for every subsequent call in the session. That is a meaningful gap given the strong destructive annotation, though the session-scope statement does add context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no wasted words. The middle sentence is slightly promotional ('Essential...') but still conveys useful context rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and both parameters are fully documented. For a simple session-switch operation the description is nearly complete; the only shortfall is not explaining the consequences of the destructive/idempotent flags it carries.

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 coverage is 100%, so entityId and is_recursive are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Use is_recursive=true to include sub-entities' largely restates the schema description ('Include sub-entities (default: false)'), adding only a usage framing. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (change active entity) and adds the crucial scope qualifier 'for the current session,' which separates it from glpi_update_entity and glpi_get_entity. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the session-scoping makes the target distinct enough for an agent to pick correctly.

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?

'Essential for multi-entity GLPI instances' implies when the tool matters, giving the agent a context trigger. However, it never states when to call it versus glpi_get_my_entities or glpi_get_full_session, nor any prerequisites (e.g., needing rights to the target entity). Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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