openclaw_setup_select_default

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: closing existing client connections and re-routing subsequent calls. This goes beyond what is obvious from the name and schema, providing valuable transparency.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and a key side effect. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers the main action, effect on other tools, and a precondition. A minor gap is the lack of return value description, but this is not critical for a side-effect tool.

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 already describes the parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds a precondition: 'Must already exist (use openclaw_setup first),' which provides meaningful context beyond the schema's type and description.

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 action 'Switch the active default instance' and explains the effect on subsequent tool calls. It distinguishes itself well from sibling tools like openclaw_setup (which likely creates instances) and openclaw_setup_list by specifying its unique role.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to set the default instance. It mentions the side effect of closing client connections and the routing behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, hence a slight deduction.

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