avito_use_cabinet

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=truehare= and readOnlyHint=false (so it's a mutation), but the description clarifies that the effect is persistent: 'Subsequent API calls use its credentials.' This is a key behavioral trait—the tool changes state for future calls—which is not fully captured by the annotations. It doesn't mention side effects like needing authentication, but the idempotent hint implies repeated calls are safe, and the description adds enough context for safe invocation.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence explains the argument. No wasted words; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and a simple action sequence: switch cabinet and use credentials. The description explains the effect on subsequent callsiki and where to get the cabinet name (references list_cabinets). It doesn't detail output (though there is an output schema, which likely covers return values), and it doesn't explain error cases, but for this simple switching action, the context provided is sufficient for an agent to execute 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 schema describes 'name' as a string with no additional details. The description adds value by indicating that 'name' is 'the cabinet to activate' and references the list tool for valid values. This is helpful for selecting the correct parameter value. However, since there's only one parameter and the description is brief, it doesn't add extensive semantic detail, but it does clarify the meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Switch the active cabinet. Subsequent API calls use its credentials.' This clearly identifies the verb (switch), the resource (cabinet), and the consequence (API calls use its credentials). It differentiates from siblings by the action and the 'use' prefix in the name, though it doesn't name a specific sibling to avoid.

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: when you need to change the active cabinet before making subsequent API calls. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., list cabinets to see available ones). It references '{svc}_list_cabinets' for the argument, which provides some guidance on where to get valid names, but leaves the decision-making to the agent.

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