Set Current Application Scope

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it validates the app exists, records previous scope, verifies the change, and warns that it changes the session's application context. This provides insight into side effects and safety, which is valuable since the tool is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: three sentences that state the primary action, key validation steps, and an important warning. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, key behaviors (validation, recording, verification), and the session context side effect. It does not describe the return value or error handling, but 'verifies the change' implies feedback, and the annotations cover safety. This is complete enough for an agent to use correctly in most cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, fully documenting the 'instance' and 'app_sys_id' parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema already provides comprehensive parameter semantics. Baseline 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's purpose: 'Change the active application scope.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and adds detail about validation, previous scope recording, and verification. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_current_scope or list_scoped_apps, though its unique purpose is evident from the name.

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 by stating the action ('Change the active application scope') and warns about the session context change, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The context is clear enough to infer when this tool should be used, but there is no direct comparison to other scope-related tools.

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