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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description clarifies behavioral boundaries: billing and organization/access are read-only, an agent must not grant rights or trigger cost, and certain areas (gateway, service catalog, AI assist) have no tools. Consistent with the annotation, no contradiction.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the description includes dense tangential information about billing, gateway, service catalog, and AI assist areas that could be condensed. Sentence 4 mixes two distinct ideas (read-only boundaries and unavailable toolsets), reducing clarity.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage timing, parameter guidance, behavioral boundaries, and related tool interactions. The extra context about toolsets is helpful for navigation, though some information is tangential to the tool's core function.

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% for both parameters. The description's parameter guidance ('Pass the organization's public ID (GUID) and optionally a project's public ID') essentially restates the schema descriptions without adding significant new meaning. Baseline of 3 applies due to full schema coverage.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set the active organization and optionally a project for this session.' This uses a specific verb (set) + resource (active organization/project) + scope (session), distinguishing it from the numerous get/list sibling 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?

Explicitly states 'Must be called before using any module-specific tools,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also explains the relationship with list_toolsets and enable_toolset, though it doesn't name direct alternatives for the same purpose.

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