Set Default Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about persistence, scope of effect (global vs. session), or what happens if the named server does not exist. Only the bare implication of a state change is conveyed.

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 one-phrase description is front-loaded and wastes no words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline — nothing substantive is delivered in the short space.

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 not be described, but with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation for a state-changing tool, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer before calling it.

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 0%, and the single parameter "server" is left unexplained — it is unclear whether it expects a server name, ID, or URL, or whether it must match an entry from list_servers. The description does nothing to compensate for this gap.

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?

"切换默认服务器" states a specific verb (switch) and resource (default server), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling set_server_url, which sounds like it also modifies which server is used.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus set_server_url, list_servers, or register. No prerequisites (e.g., must the server already be registered?) or exclusions are given.

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