rba_select_client

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the effect (setting default client) but omits critical details: whether the default persists across sessions, whether it overwrites a previous default, scope (global vs. session), or side effects on subsequent tool calls. This is a state-mutating operation with insufficient transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It earns its place and is appropriately sized.

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 setter, the description is adequate in stating the primary purpose, but it leaves gaps around persistence, scope, and behavior on invalid input. Since the tool is simple, a score of 3 reflects that it meets the minimum viable standard but is not fully 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 schema only provides a type (integer) and constraint (exclusiveMinimum > 0) for clientId. The description adds meaningful context by indicating that clientId is the client to set as default and that it applies when targets are omitted. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it doesn't provide additional details like how to obtain a clientId.

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 states a specific action ('set the default client') and identifies the resource affected (default client). It distinguishes itself from siblings like rba_set_client_status (which sets client status) and rba_client_info (which reads client info).

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 provides clear usage context by explaining that the default client is used when a tool target is omitted. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks the exclusionary guidance needed for a 5.

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