use_org

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose two important behaviors: the setting is session-scoped and explicit org= overrides take precedence. It omits what happens on an invalid org, whether it affects credentials/tokens, and whether the change is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. The trailing parenthetical is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but it is not padding.

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 one-parameter session setter with an output schema, the core action is covered, and return values need not be explained. Missing pieces are the valid value source, session lifetime, persistence, and failure behavior, which matter for a stateful setter with no annotations.

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?

There is one required parameter, org, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of meaning. It only implies the value can also be supplied one-off as org= and never states whether it is a name, ID, or alias, nor where to discover valid values (orgs_list).

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Set the active org for this session.' This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like current_org and orgs_list. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the action is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical 'one-off org= overrides still win' tells the agent that a per-call override takes precedence, which is real routing guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over login, current_org, or orgs_list, or whether the change persists beyond the session.

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