crpt_use_cabinet

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

The description discloses that the tool changes the active-cabinet state and that this affects credentials for later calls, going beyond the annotations. It does not describe error behavior for unknown cabinet names, but the core stateful 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 short and front-loaded: two imperative sentences state purpose and effect, followed by a single Args line. Every sentence adds necessary information and there is no filler.

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 switch with an output schema and annotations covering idempotency, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what changes, and where to find valid input values, so an agent has enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for the 'name' parameter. It explains that name is the cabinet to activate and points the agent to crpt_list_cabinets for valid values, which fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Switch the active cabinet,' and clarifies the consequence: subsequent API calls use its credentials. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling cabinet tools such as crpt_list_cabinets, crpt_add_cabinet, and crpt_remove_cabinet.

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?

It provides clear usage context: use this tool to change which cabinet's credentials subsequent API calls will use. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the invocation scenario is unambiguous.

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