Set Current Application Scope

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: validation, recording previous scope, and verifying the change. It also warns that this changes the session context. However, it does not mention side effects like error handling or reversibility beyond recording previous scope.

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 two sentences plus an important note, all relevant. No redundant information; each part adds value. Perfectly concise for the purpose.

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?

While the description covers the action and inputs, it lacks information about the output or return value. The tool modifies state and records previous scope, but what the user gets back is not described. Missing output details reduces completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, except indirectly through behavioral context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 changes the active application scope, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_current_scope' by focusing on modification rather than retrieval.

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 usage for changing scope but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_current_scope' or other set tools. No direct guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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