Set my default persona

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

It discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the operation moves a flag rather than adding one, does not re-attribute already published content, and only affects future writes unless a persona argument is passed. This is exactly the state-change nuance an agent needs and is consistent with the non-destructive, non-idempotent annotation flags.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by three tightly packed, high-value clarifications about flag semantics, non-retroactivity, and verification. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no filler.

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 with no output schema, the description fully explains what changes, what doesn't, and how to confirm the result via whoami. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the persona parameter with source hint ('From list_personas'). The description adds meaning about the default flag and write behavior but little about the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter-level weight.

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 action ('makes one of your personas the account default') with a clear resource and consequence: the byline stamped on writes. It distinguishes itself from sibling persona tools by focusing on the default selection rather than creation or editing. This is immediately 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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: changing the account-level default persona, with the nuance that exactly one default exists at a time. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the unique operation and 'call whoami afterwards' guidance make appropriate usage evident.

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