set_organization

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool sets a persistent context ('all subsequent API calls will target the selected organization until changed'), requires prior authentication ('after logging in'), and has a specific effect on the session. It doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or permissions, but covers the core mutation behavior adequately for a context-setting 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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by prerequisites, behavioral context, and a clear usage section with bullet points. Every sentence adds value—no repetition or fluff—and the bullet points enhance readability without wasting space.

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 moderate complexity (sets persistent context), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral impact. However, it lacks details on error cases (e.g., invalid orgID) and doesn't fully document the return value ('Dictionary with the selected organization ID and name' is vague without an output schema).

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 input schema has 0% description coverage (only titles), so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'orgID: Name or ID of the organization to select' clarifies the parameter accepts either identifier type. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., string patterns) or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity. Given the low schema coverage, this is above baseline but not exhaustive.

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 purpose: 'Select which SingleStore organization to use for all subsequent API calls.' It specifies the verb ('select'), resource ('organization'), and scope ('all subsequent API calls'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_organizations (which lists organizations) or organization_info (which provides details).

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'This tool must be called after logging in and before making other API requests' (prerequisites), 'Call get_organizations first to see available options' (dependency), and 'All subsequent API calls will use the selected organization' (effect). It clearly indicates when to use it (after login, before other calls) and references the sibling tool get_organizations as an alternative for discovery.

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