set_active_vault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it sets state but does not disclose persistence, failure modes, or whether the vault must already be registered. For a state-changing operation, this is insufficient detail.

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 description is a single sentence with no fluff, clearly front-loaded with the verb and resource. It efficiently states what the tool does and its purpose without wasting words.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits important context such as whether the setting persists, what happens on invalid input, and how the vault name relates to list_vaults. With no output schema or annotations, more behavioral context would make it more complete.

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?

The input schema fully documents the 'vault' parameter, so the description does not need to add much. It does not add syntax or source details beyond the schema, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the verb 'set' and the resource 'active vault', and explains its purpose for subsequent operations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_vaults and register_vault, which manage vaults rather than set the current one.

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 phrase 'for subsequent operations' provides some context, implying that this tool should be used before other operations that require a vault context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites like having a registered vault.

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