Change active entity

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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds session scoping and the multi-entity context, but it never explains what the destructiveHint implies, whether the switch is persisted or session-only, or what happens if the entity is not accessible to the user.

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 core action, then rationale, then the parameter hint. No filler and nothing repeated.

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 values need no explanation, and the tool is a simple two-parameter session switch. The description covers purpose, applicability, and the recursive option; only edge behavior (invalid/inaccessible entity, effect on subsequent calls) is unaddressed, which is a minor gap here.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. "Use is_recursive=true to include sub-entities" largely restates the schema's own "Include sub-entities (default: false)" and adds no extra syntax, format, or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Change the active entity") and scopes it precisely to the current session, which distinguishes it from the sibling glpi_update_entity (which edits entity records) and glpi_get_my_entities. An agent can separate it from all other entity tools without opening a schema.

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?

"Essential for multi-entity GLPI instances" gives a clear condition that selects this tool over the entity CRUD siblings, and the recursive hint tells the caller how to widen scope. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g. that this is a session switch, not a persistent change) and never names an alternative tool.

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