set_current_take

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one behavior: rejecting when the take is not found or ambiguous. However, it does not mention that this changes the current take (mutation), potential side effects, or any prerequisites. Minimal behavioral transparency.

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 succinct: one sentence states the purpose and includes parameter details. It is front-loaded with the action and wastes no words. The parameter explanation is integrated efficiently.

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 setter tool, the description covers the core action and one parameter, but it omits context about the role of ctx and the concept of 'current take'. No output schema or annotations exist, so more context would be beneficial. Adequate but incomplete in covering prerequisites or side effects.

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 explains name_or_path as 'take 名或路径' (take name or path), adding meaning not present in the schema. However, the ctx parameter is entirely undocumented. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate but only covers half the parameters, leaving a gap.

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 '切换当前 take' clearly states the action (switch) and the resource (current take). The verb is specific and unambiguous, and the name alone distinguishes it from siblings like get_current_take and create_take. It fully captures the tool's function.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like get_current_take or create_take, nor does it specify use cases. The only extra information is about error handling ('找不到/歧义时拒绝'), which is not usage guidance.

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