whodb_platform_session_use

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds real value beyond that: the login is verified, the target is resolved to canonical IDs, nothing is written to the CLI config, and other chats/terminals/sessions are unaffected, plus the resolution order (explicit workspace > session default > process/saved defaults). It stops short of describing failure behavior for an unresolvable org/project, which keeps it from a 5.

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 key constraint (session-only, other sessions unaffected) is front-loaded and each sentence carries information. The closing sentence re-describes the workspace parameter's per-call behavior, which slightly duplicates the schema and makes the entry longer than needed.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope of effect, precedence, verification, and cleanup. For a single optional-parameter session tool this is complete enough to call correctly.

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 baseline is 3; the nested workspace fields and their fallback chain are already documented in the schema. The description still adds precedence semantics — later calls that omit workspace inherit this session default, and an explicit workspace on a later call overrides it — which is meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource — set the default host, organization, and project for this MCP session — and immediately scopes it as session-only, which separates it from whodb_platform_session_clear and from per-call workspace targeting on other tools. An agent knows exactly what this tool does without consulting 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?

It gives explicit timing ("use this once at the start of a chat that should stay on one host"), a verification step (call whodb_platform_status to confirm), and an escape hatch (whodb_platform_session_clear to return to process/saved defaults). It also states precedence — an explicit workspace on a later call overrides the session default — so the agent knows when not to call this tool.

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