set_context

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. It adds valuable behavioral context such as 'without reconnecting' and the 'omit to leave unchanged' semantics, which go beyond the annotations by explaining how the tool behaves when parameters are omitted.

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 highly concise: a single purposeful opening sentence followed by a compact list of parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value with no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with two optional parameters and read-only annotations, the description is fully complete. It explains the action, parameter semantics, and the key behavioral nuance (no reconnect). The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'database: Set the active database. Omit to leave unchanged.' and similarly for schema. This adds clear meaning beyond the raw schema properties, which only provide type and default.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update the active PostgreSQL database and/or schema without reconnecting.' The verb 'update' combined with the specific resource ('active PostgreSQL database and/or schema') precisely conveys the action, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like show_context or clear_context.

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 clear usage context: it modifies the active database/schema without requiring a reconnect. This implies when to use this tool (when needing to switch context) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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