set_world

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the persistent side effect ('for all subsequent queries'), lists available world options, and notes the return behavior. It omits error/overwrite semantics, but for a simple setter this is adequate.

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 compact and well-structured: action, available worlds in a bulleted list, and return value. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

Despite having only one parameter, no annotations, and empty schema descriptions, the description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly: what it does, when it applies, what inputs are valid, and what to expect in return. The existence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return details.

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 provides only a bare 'world' string with zero description coverage. The tool description compensates by giving concrete valid values (earth-313, 'bral') and clarifying the type of worlds accepted. Minor gaps remain around format/case sensitivity, but the semantics are well clarified.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Set the current world context for all subsequent queries.' This distinguishes set_world from sibling data-fetching tools (find_accommodations, find_events, etc.) by emphasizing it is a context-setting action rather than a query.

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 phrase 'for all subsequent queries' clearly indicates when the tool should be used (before other queries). It also enumerates valid world IDs, providing concrete input guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it relates to describe_world.

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