ym_use_cabinet

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: switching the active cabinet affects subsequent API calls and uses credentials. This is a state-changing operation with a persistent side effect, which is disclosed. It could mention whether the switch persists across sessions, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a parameter note. Every word earns its place. The key behavioral fact (subsequent calls use its credentials) is front-loaded, and the parameter reference is clearly separated.

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 state-switching tool, the description is nearly complete. It explains the effect, the parameter, and where to find valid values. The output schema exists but is not described; however, for a switch operation the return value is likely trivial. A minor gap is not stating whether the switch is persistent across sessions or how to verify the active cabinet.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that 'name' is 'the cabinet to activate' and points to ym_list_cabinets for valid values. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the format or constraints of the name (e.g., exact match, case sensitivity), leaving some ambiguity.

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 the tool's function: 'Switch the active cabinet' and explains the consequence ('Subsequent API calls use its credentials'). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from other cabinet operations like list/add/remove. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it doesn't fully differentiate from the other *_use_cabinet tools across providers, though the ym_ prefix already scopes it.

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 implies when to use it: before making API calls that need a specific cabinet's credentials. It references ym_list_cabinets as the source for valid names, which is useful routing guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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