change_directory

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully inform. It only states the action and gives an example path. It does not describe side effects (e.g., persistent change), error behavior, permission requirements, or impact on other operations like file reads. Also, it omits the crucial 'agent_id' parameter from the usage text.

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?

Description is extremely concise with a clear verb, usage line, argument definition, and example. No wasted words. Front-loaded structure.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values or failure behavior. It omits the agent_id parameter entirely, making the description incomplete for correct invocation. The tool is simple but the description lacks necessary context.

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%. The description explains 'path' as 'Target directory path', adding some meaning, but completely ignores the 'agent_id' parameter, which is required. This leaves half the parameters undocumented.

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 verb 'Change' and resource 'current working directory of the agent process'. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_working_directory or list_directory which are read-only. The example further clarifies the purpose.

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?

No guidance on when or when not to use the tool. No mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context. Sibling tools exist but no differentiation provided.

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