Set active Studio

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

Although annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial beyond-schema context: persistence until changed or disconnected, AMBIGUOUS_STUDIO refusal when no choice exists, per-connection state isolation, and the silent subagent retargeting hazard. This is rich disclosure of consequences beyond any structured field.

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 longer than average, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage, and every later paragraph covers a real behavioral consequence. The subagent warning is verbose but vital; a slight tightening would make it fully concise, so 4 rather than 5.

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 stateful selector with connection-scoped side effects, the description covers the full lifecycle: when to invoke it, what happens while multiple studios are connected, how state persists, and how it interacts with subagents. No output schema is needed, and nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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%, and the only parameter, studioId, is documented in the schema as coming from list_studios. The description reinforces the source and warns subagents to pass studioId directly, but it does not add new format, range, or default semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: it 'Chooses which connected Studio window every other tool targets by default.' It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_studios and studio_status because it names the selection role and the effect on other 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?

Usage is explicit: use after list_studios when several places are open, and again when the user asks to switch. It also gives a firm exclusion, telling subagents to pass studioId on each call instead of invoking this tool, which is exactly the kind of when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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