pennylane_switch_dossier

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful state context beyond them: the switch persists and changes the default dossier for all following requests. It also discloses a verification step (/me after switching), which no annotation conveys. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or how long the state persists.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence, and each sentence contributes (action, state effect, verification). No filler, though the line breaks are cosmetic artifacts rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers the key non-obvious behavior (persistent default-dossier state) that the schema cannot express. The main remaining gap is the absence of prerequisite/permission context for a state-changing session operation.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Slug du dossier vers lequel basculer'), so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format guidance (where to obtain a valid slug, e.g. from pennylane_list_dossiers) or validation notes.

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 ('Bascule vers un autre dossier comptable') and, crucially, its session-wide effect ('Toutes les requêtes suivantes utiliseront ce dossier par défaut'), which distinguishes it from list_dossiers/current_dossier/add_dossier/remove_dossier. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation relies on the reader's inference.

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 implied: call this when you want to change which dossier subsequent calls target, and the note to verify via /me afterwards gives a post-condition hint. But there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. whether the dossier must already be added via pennylane_add_dossier), and no named alternative for read-only inspection of the current dossier.

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