set_environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: the setting is session-scoped, and it changes variable resolution to a prefix-first rule ({CURRENT_ENV}_VAR before generic VAR). What it omits is validation/error behavior for an unknown environment name and whether the setting persists beyond the session.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the resolution semantics and the secret-placement convention. No padding or repetition.

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 low-complexity two-parameter setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, side effects on interpolation, and naming conventions. Remaining gaps (invalid-value handling, persistence) are minor for a tool of this size.

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 coverage is 50%: workspaceRoot is documented in the schema, but the required 'environment' parameter has no schema description. The description partially compensates by giving example values (STAGING, DEVELOP_*, STAGING_*), but does not state whether accepted values are constrained or free-form.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Set the active logical environment for this workspace session', with a concrete example value (STAGING). It is clear in isolation, but never explicitly contrasts itself with the nearby sibling set_environment_variable, and its heavy focus on variable interpolation could blur that boundary.

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 rather than stated: the description explains the consequence of setting the environment (prefix-first resolution of {CURRENT_ENV}_VAR) and tells the caller where secrets belong (DEVELOP_*/STAGING_* in .env.mcp.local), but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus set_environment_variable or get_environment_variable.

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