wb_use_cabinet

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the active cabinet is switched and that subsequent calls use its credentials. It does not over-explain return values or edge cases, but the core state change is clear.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: one imperative sentence states the action and effect, followed by a single-line argument explanation. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

The description is sufficient for a simple one-parameter state-change tool, especially with an output schema present. It could be marginally more complete by noting the prerequisite that the cabinet must already exist, but the reference to list_cabinets covers the discovery path.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for explaining the 'name' parameter. It defines it as 'the cabinet to activate' and directs the agent to {svc}_list_cabinets, which provides both meaning and a retrieval source.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Switch the active cabinet') and clearly states the tool's effect. It is readily distinguishable from sibling cabinet tools like wb_list_cabinets, wb_add_cabinet, and wb_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?

The description implies when to use it ('Subsequent API calls use its credentials') and points to {svc}_list_cabinets for valid names, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use this only after adding a cabinet' or 'do not use for auth checks.'

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