set_default_org

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful persistence context ('persists across sessions'), but does not mention that setting this overwrites any existing default org or note any auth requirements.

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 with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded in the opening clause.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency and no output schema, the description covers purpose and persistence adequately. It could still note the overwriting behavior and authentication prerequisites, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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 reported at 0%, though targetOrg carries a description ('Username or alias of the org to set as the default target org'). The description adds only the default-target framing and no extra format or alias-syntax detail, so it does not meaningfully compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (Set) and resource (default target org for the Salesforce CLI) and explains the resulting effect. It reads clearly apart from get_default_org and clear_default_org without naming them, though explicit sibling routing would have earned a 5.

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 downstream behavior ('all tools will use this org by default when no targetOrg is specified') but never says when an agent should call this versus passing targetOrg explicitly or using clear_default_org. Usage context 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.