set_default_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the constraint 'Must be one of the catalog's domain schemas,' the return format (JSON with status, default_schema, domain_schemas), and an example. It does not explicitly mention that this permanently changes the connection state, but the verb 'set' implies it. This is adequate for a simple setter.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, an Args section, Returns, and an Example. Every sentence contributes value: the usage context, the parameter explanation, the return shape, and the illustrative example. No filler or repetition.

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 setter, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the precondition (active catalog connection), the parameter semantics, the validation constraint, and the return format. The presence of an output schema further covers return expectations. No important gaps remain.

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 input schema has no description for schema_name, and schema coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining the parameter with an example (e.g., 'isa', 'my_project') and the constraint that it must be one of the catalog's domain schemas. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the default schema for the active catalog connection.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like set_active_catalog (which sets the active catalog, not the schema) and connect_catalog. The focus on schema selection within a catalog is unambiguous.

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 clear context: 'When a catalog has multiple domain schemas... Setting a default schema avoids having to specify it on every call.' This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is present but not fully exhaustive.

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