edb_set_current_thread

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructiveness. The description adds behavioral context by stating that subsequent commands apply to the selected thread, which is a key side effect. No contradiction with annotations.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences plus a structured args/returns section. Every sentence is relevant and 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 thread-switching tool, the description covers the main action and effect. Missing information includes references to listing threads (edb_list_threads) for valid IDs and error handling, but the tool is straightforward. An output schema exists but is not detailed.

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 description repeats the schema's parameter description ('Thread ID to switch to') but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 the action ('Switch the debugger context') and the resource ('a different thread'), and explicitly notes that subsequent commands apply to the selected thread, distinguishing it from sibling tools like edb_get_current_thread and edb_list_threads.

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 that this tool is for changing the active thread and affects later commands, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the purpose is unambiguous.

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