set_working_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral constraints (directory must exist, workspace boundary, relative path resolution) but does not explain failure modes, whether the change persists for the session, or any side effects. This is partial transparency.

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 two short, focused paragraphs. It opens with the main purpose and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct constraint or detail. No filler or redundant 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the essential behavioral constraints. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. It is sufficiently complete, though it does not explicitly address error conditions or alternatives.

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 already describes the path parameter, but the description adds significant semantics by stating relative path resolution and the workspace boundary requirement. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'absolute or relative' note, earning a 4.

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 tool's specific verb and resource: 'Change the current session working directory.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_working_directory.

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 implies usage by explaining the constraints on the path (must exist, workspace boundary), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. It is sufficient for understanding the tool's purpose but lacks direct usage recommendations.

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