switch_dicom_node

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the node must exist in configuration, returns success false if not found, and specifies the return structure (success and message). This is sufficient for a simple configuration-switching tool.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured with separate sections for Args, Returns, Example, and Notes. It front-loads the key action and uses minimal, effective language.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects), the description fully covers operation, parameters, return values, and error behavior. It is complete for its 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which only provides the title and type for node_name. The Args section explains that node_name must match a configuration entry, which is essential usage detail not present in the schema.

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 that the tool switches the active DICOM node connection, using the verb 'Switch' and specifying the resource 'active DICOM node connection'. This purpose distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_dicom_nodes and verify_connection.

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?

The description explains when to use the tool (to change the active node for subsequent operations) and notes that the node must be defined in the configuration. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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