Set Existing AIS Session

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is mutable (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds only that it modifies 'process memory', which provides some context but does not disclose potential side effects or prerequisites beyond what annotations imply.

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: two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, the second provides a critical security note. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential action and a usage warning. It could be more complete by noting what happens if the session token is invalid or expired, but for a basic setter it is adequate.

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 names the two parameters ('username' and 'accessToken') and implies they are for an existing portal session, but does not explain what constitutes a valid accessToken, how to obtain it, or any format constraints beyond the schema's minLength.

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 verb 'set', the resource ('existing portal username and AccessToken'), and the scope ('in process memory'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like login or logout by specifying it sets an existing session rather than creating a new 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 description advises preferring environment variables for security, which provides clear usage guidance regarding when to avoid this tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool over siblings like ais_auth_login or ais_auth_status.

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