companies_set_active

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add context, and it does: the underlying PUT endpoint, the COMPANY_EDIT permission requirement, and the fact that the response is the refreshed company list. It does not mention what happens to the previously active company or any side effects on other settings, which is a minor omission for a mutation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and free of padding. The raw endpoint path is arguably filler for an agent that never calls the API directly, but it does not obstruct comprehension.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers action, prerequisite, permission, and return shape, which is close to complete. The one real gap is the unresolved overlap with companies_select, which an agent needs resolved before choosing this 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains companyId fully. The description restates 'by UUID' without adding format, sourcing, or error semantics beyond what the schema and the companies_list hint already convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope ('Set the organization-level active company by UUID'), which is far clearer than the name alone. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool companies_select, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('Use companies_list first to find available company UUIDs') and states the required permission, so an agent knows how to prepare a valid call. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over companies_select, so no explicit exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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