set_active_site

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'lock' without explaining side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what happens to the previously active site. This is insufficient for a state-changing operation.

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, making it technically concise, but it is under-specified. It serves as a minimal statement of purpose but lacks any structural elements like parameter hints, usage notes, or behavioral details that would make it more useful.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what 'lock' entails, what the parameters represent, and what the resulting state change looks like, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 lists 4 properties (title, siteId, siteUrl, hostname) with siteId and siteUrl required, but the description mentions none of them. With 0% schema coverage in the description, the agent gets no semantic guidance on how to populate these parameters or what each one means.

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 'Lock the MCP to a specific SharePoint Online site,' which clearly identifies the action (setting the active site) and the resource (the MCP context). The verb 'lock' is somewhat idiomatic but conveys a state change, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_active_site and set_active_site_from_tab by implying direct specification of a site.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_active_site_from_tab or get_active_site. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or why an agent would choose this over other site-selection tools.

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