set_default_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the setting affects CLI/dashboard behavior and applies only when no account is specified, but it does not mention persistence, overwrite behavior, permissions, or idempotency. This adds some context but remains incomplete for a mutation tool.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and scope, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, though it sacrifices parameter detail.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and zero parameter coverage, the description is under-specified. It does not clarify what the 'name' parameter should contain, whether the setting persists across sessions, or how it interacts with get_default_account. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the three parameters. The required 'name' parameter is ambiguous (portfolio vs account name), and 'agent' and 'idempotency_key' are entirely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 function: setting the default portfolio used by the CLI and dashboard when no account is specified. This is a specific verb+resource+scope and is distinct from sibling get_default_account, which reads the default.

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 when to use the tool: when a default fallback account is needed for CLI/dashboard operations. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and distinct from related tools like get_default_account.

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