set_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool sets a default context but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a persistent change, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on errors, or if it affects all subsequent tools globally. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Set the default corporation and site context') and purpose ('for subsequent operations'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation affecting global state), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like persistence, error handling, or impact on other tools. For a context-setting tool with significant implications, more detail is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'corpName' and 'siteName' in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples). Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or add value.

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 ('Set') and the target ('default corporation and site context'), specifying it's for 'subsequent operations'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_context' (which retrieves rather than sets) and 'set_credentials' (which handles authentication). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'update_site' might also affect site context).

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 stating 'for subsequent operations', suggesting this tool should be used to establish a context before other operations. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., whether to use this vs. setting context per-operation), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks detailed alternatives.

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