Create an additional engagement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It openly states the key side effects: the new engagement becomes current and existing engagements are preserved. This is valuable transparency, though it does not cover failure modes, permissions, or return behavior.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. The bilingual duplication is intentional and each sentence contributes meaningful behavioral information.

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 create operation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the important state-changing behavior: creating, selecting as current, and preserving existing engagements. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what happens, though it does not mention what the tool returns or how current selection is later changed.

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 the input schema already documents all seven parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable under the baseline but does not improve upon 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 a specific action: create an additional engagement and make it current. It also distinguishes this from updating, listing, or switching by emphasizing that existing engagements are kept, so the tool's purpose is unambiguous even among many engagement-related siblings.

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 provides clear situational context: use this when you want an additional engagement while keeping existing ones running in parallel. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full explicit routing guidance.

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