set_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states that the selection is remembered for future sessions ('le mémorise pour les prochaines sessions'), which is a key behavioral trait beyond the schema. It does not mention other details like error handling, but the essential persistence behavior is disclosed.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key usage hint and persistence detail. Every part is informative with no redundant 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 simple state-setting tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it identifies the action, the target resource, the persistence side effect, and the correct parameter source. The optional host parameter is covered by the schema, so no additional description is required.

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%, so the parameters store_id and host are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds the meaningful relationship that store_id comes from find_stores, but otherwise does not add significant new semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Sélectionne le magasin actif' (selects the active store). It also distinguishes it from the sibling get_store by emphasizing the state-changing and persistent nature of the operation, and references find_stores as the source for the ID.

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 gives explicit usage guidance by stating to use the ID returned by find_stores, which is a clear prerequisite and points to the correct sibling workflow. It does not explicitly describe when not to use the tool or compare with alternatives, but the context is clear.

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