use_office

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that changes are in-process memory only and do not affect other sessions or windows, which is a crucial behavioral caveat. It does not cover invalid-label handling or return behavior, but the most important side-effect information is present.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and then clarifies the scope with a short parenthetical. There is no wasted text.

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 state-changing tool, the description is complete: it states what action is performed, the scope of the change, and the non-persistence behavior. The parameter is fully documented in the schema via the reference to list_offices, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as format requirements or examples, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action: switching the active business operator for the current session. The scope is explicit (session-local), which distinguishes this from tools that manage saved offices or query current state, though it does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative.

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 clearly communicates when the tool is used: to change the active business operator within the current session. It provides useful context about the session-scoped effect, though it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives.

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