Select resource pool

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

Discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: no undo step, setting holds application-wide, and the precondition of a new unmodified project. The annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'no undo step' adds nuance. Missing what happens on failure or whether the current pool is preserved.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the critical precondition and side effects. It could mention what the output schema returns (e.g., success status) but that's optional.

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 coverage is 100%, so the path parameter is fully documented in the schema with absolute path and .xml format. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond referencing the file type, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('switches') and resource ('global resource pool') with the file format restriction (.xml). An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like resource_pool_edit_open or resource_pool_ris_select without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition: only works on a new unmodified project, so call rillsoft_project_create first. This gives clear when-to-use context, though it doesn't name alternatives for switching pools in other scenarios.

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