fusion_use_pod

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it switches config, credentials, report registry, fixtures, audit log, and docs snapshot; persists until session end or re-call; and alerts that schema knowledge does not carry across pods. This enriches the readOnly/idempotent hints without contradicting them.

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 tightly structured, front-loading the central behavior in the first sentence, then explaining side effects, caveats, and parameters. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 session-binding tool, the description is complete: it defines the effect, the lifecycle, the caveat about cross-pod schema knowledge, and the response convention. An output schema exists, so the description need not spell out return values.

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 the parameter name 'pod' with no description, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the value is a directory name under pods/ and gives concrete examples ('test' or 'prod'). This is sufficient for a single simple parameter, though it could have pointed to fusion_list_pods for available values.

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 first sentence, 'Bind this session to one pod: every later call runs against it,' clearly states the verb, resource, and immediate consequence. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing a session-wide context switch rather than a data operation, which is unique among the sibling list.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: before subsequent calls when a specific pod context is needed. It explains how long the effect lasts and even warns about schema differences across pods. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like fusion_list_pods for discovering pod names, so the guidance stops just short of fully routing the agent.

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