Set Writable

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only discloses that Git stores are read-only; it does not say whether this sets global state, whether non-writable stores are rejected or accepted as read-only, what happens to a previously selected store, or what errors may occur.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the action, the second states the critical constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 store-selection tool with no annotations, the description omits important operational context: what 'select' means for subsequent write operations, whether Git stores can still be selected but remain read-only, and how this relates to write_skill or use_skill. The output schema may cover return values, but not the runtime behavior.

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 description does not mention the 'name' parameter, how the store is identified, or any constraints on the value. The agent must infer from the property name and tool title that 'name' is the target store's name, which is insufficient compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a clear verb ('Select') and a specific resource ('one writable-capable store'), and immediately clarifies that Git stores are read-only. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say that this sets the active writable store, but the core action is identifiable.

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?

It gives a selection criterion: choose a writable-capable store, with Git stores excluded because they are read-only. However, it does not mention when to use this tool instead of add_store, update_store, or remove_store, nor does it state prerequisites such as the store already existing.

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