ecp_asdf_set_global

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic effect. It does not say whether the plugin/version must already be installed, what system state changes, whether the operation is reversible, or what the tool returns.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and it is readily scannable for an agent.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete: it omits preconditions, side effects, and result behavior. The low parameter count keeps it from being lower, but an agent still lacks enough context to invoke it safely and correctly.

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 input schema provides no descriptions for 'name' or 'version', so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'name' refers to a plugin and 'version' is the version to make globally default, but it leaves unspecified what version values are valid or whether the version must be installed.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Set', and a specific resource, 'global default version for a plugin', making the operation identifiable without opening the schema. It is clearly distinct from sibling asdf operations like install, uninstall, or listing versions, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 gives no guidance about when to call this tool, what to do first (e.g., list installed versions or install a version), or when to prefer a sibling asdf tool instead. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and domain.

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