avito_use_cabinet

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

The description discloses the key behavioral side effect: switching the active cabinet affects all subsequent API calls by using that cabinet's credentials. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and does not contradict them, making the agent aware that this is a state-changing operation with lasting effect.

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 minimal and front-loaded, delivering the core purpose in the first sentence and the relevant parameter detail in a single Args line. Every sentence earns its place; there is no boilerplate or repetition of schema or annotations.

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 one required parameter, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the necessary behavior (switching active cabinet) and parameter provenance. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and the output schema handles return-value details.

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 provides only a parameter title 'Name' with no description, but the description fully compensates by explaining 'name: the cabinet to activate (see avito_list_cabinets).' This tells the agent not only what the parameter means but also where to obtain valid values, making it a complete semantic definition.

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 opens with the specific verb-resource pair 'Switch the active cabinet,' clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from cabinet-management siblings such as avito_list_cabinets, avito_add_cabinet, and avito_remove_cabinet by stating that it changes the currently active cabinet and that subsequent API calls use that cabinet's credentials.

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 gives a clear usage context: use this tool whenever the agent needs to change which cabinet's credentials will govern subsequent API calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the side-effect phrase 'Subsequent API calls use its credentials' provides an unambiguous signal of when the tool is appropriate.

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