set_active_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says "switch" without explaining side effects, prerequisites (e.g., that the catalog must be connected), or what happens to the previous active catalog. This is a minimal description that leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's operational implications.

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, consisting of one action sentence and a two-item argument list. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb phrase first. No unnecessary 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 tool is simple with only two parameters and a clear purpose. An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. The description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could benefit from noting that the catalog must already be connected.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides one-line explanations for both parameters: "Server hostname of the catalog to activate" and "Catalog ID to activate." These add meaningful context beyond the bare string types in the schema, though they don't elaborate on formats or constraints.

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 catalog when multiple catalogs are connected." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect_catalog or set_default_schema. It immediately communicates the tool's purpose.

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 provides a clear condition for use: "when multiple catalogs are connected." This implies the tool is for switching among already-connected catalogs, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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