hh_use_cabinet

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: that it changes the active cabinet and that credentials are applied to subsequent calls. It does not contradict annotations and provides value beyond them, though it doesn't mention edge cases like error handling or persistence.

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 exceptionally concise and well-structured. The purpose is stated in the first line, followed by a one-sentence explanation of the effect. The parameter documentation is minimal but clear, and there is no wasted verbiage.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema (which presumably documents any return value), the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what the parameter means, and where to find valid values. It is complete for its scope.

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 only defines 'name' as a string with no description. The description explains that 'name' is the cabinet to activate and points to hh_list_cabinets for valid values, adding meaningful guidance beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, this compensation is sufficient, though it could specify format or case-sensitivity.

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 'Switch' and the resource 'active cabinet', and it explains the consequence (subsequent API calls use its credentials). This distinguishes it from siblings like hh_list_cabinets, hh_add_cabinet, and hh_remove_cabinet, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 implies usage context by stating that subsequent calls use the cabinet's credentials, which tells the agent when to invoke this tool (before calling methods that need a specific cabinet). It references hh_list_cabinets for valid names, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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