hh_use_cabinet

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-open-world, idempotent behavior, and the description adds the crucial stateful effect: the switch persists and changes credentials for all later calls. It does not cover failure modes (e.g. unknown cabinet name) or whether prior session state is discarded.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence; the Args note is minimal and non-redundant. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers action, side effect, and value sourcing for a one-parameter tool; only edge-case behavior (invalid name, effect on the previously active cabinet) is left implicit.

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 must carry the parameter. It does define the single param as the cabinet to activate and points to hh_list_cabinets as the source of valid values, which is the key semantic an agent needs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Switch the active cabinet') and immediately names the consequence. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like hh_list_cabinets, hh_add_cabinet, and hh_set_key, which manage rather than activate cabinets.

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 the workflow context ('Subsequent API calls use its credentials') and routes the agent to hh_list_cabinets for valid names. It stops short of stating exclusions or error conditions, but the activation step's place in the sequence is clear.

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