set_region

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'change region' by warning that it affects prices, stock, and the store list, which is valuable side-effect information for an agent.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action and example are front-loaded, and the side-effect warning earns its place.

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 one-parameter setter with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it says what the tool does, what input to supply, and what consequences follow. It could mention auth requirements or whether the change is persisted, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 provides no description for the required 'code' parameter, so the description must compensate. It offers a concrete example ('RU-SPE'), which helps the agent infer the expected format, though it does not enumerate valid values or explain why some codes may be invalid.

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 uses a clear imperative verb ('Сменить') and names the resource ('регион'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It also includes an example value and states downstream effects, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as list_regions or current_store.

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 this tool is for changing the current region, which is a reasonable usage signal. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as authentication or the need to call list_regions first.

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