Set active panel

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 the key behavioral trait: this mutates session-scoped default state rather than a server resource, and it affects subsequent tool calls. It omits whether the setting persists beyond the session, whether an unknown name errors, and whether validation is delegated to panel_test.

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 short sentences, the primary effect first and the consequence second. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 one-parameter session-state tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential effect but leaves the practical gaps: valid name source, error behavior on unknown panels, and session lifetime. Adequate but not complete enough to call it confidently without trial.

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 0% — the single 'name' parameter has no type-level documentation beyond being a required string. The description adds nothing about what name refers to (a panel identifier from panel_list?), its format, or whether it must already exist, so the agent learns no more than the parameter label implies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Set the active panel') plus the scope ('for this session'), which distinguishes it from sibling state-mutating panel tools like panel_add/panel_remove. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with panel_list or panel_test, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told.

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?

'Tools called without an explicit panel arg use it' implies when the tool matters, but there is no explicit 'call this before X' instruction, no precondition that the panel must exist, and no mention of how to discover valid names (panel_list). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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