sbis_use_cabinet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond them by disclosing the session-level side effect that all later calls adopt the activated credentials, which is the key behavioral trait an agent needs.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core effect ('Switch the active cabinet') leads. The 'Args:' block is slightly formulaic but efficient and not padded.

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-switching tool with an output schema present, the description covers the action, its effect, and the source of valid input. Return values need not be explained given the output schema.

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 the burden. It states that 'name' is the cabinet to activate and points to {svc}_list_cabinets for valid values, which meaningfully compensates for the undocumented schema field.

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') that immediately distinguishes it from siblings like sbis_add_cabinet, sbis_remove_cabinet, and sbis_list_cabinets. The purpose is unambiguous, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Implicitly conveys when to use it ('subsequent API calls use its credentials') and routes the agent to a companion tool for valid values (see {svc}_list_cabinets). However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and alternatives such as set_key are not contrasted.

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