Choose a linked desktop

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: which downstream tools get re-scoped, that run history/data/monitors are read from and created on the chosen desktop, and that persona credentials never leave the desktop's vault. The annotations already cover the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive), so a 4 reflects solid added value without full return-format disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and the default, then the actions in order. Sentences are dense but each carries a distinct consequence; slightly long parenthetical tool lists, though none are pure filler.

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?

No output schema, so the description does the work of describing what list returns (connection status, workflow/persona counts), which it handles. The one gap is that the 'datasets' action appears in the enum but is never addressed in the description.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the downstream effect of each action (use scopes runs/browser/workflows/personas; clear removes scope) and that device accepts an agent_id or exact name from list. Only action='datasets' is left unexplained in prose.

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+resource (list linked WRIT desktops, or scope the connection to one) with a clear scope distinction. The tool is instantly separable from siblings like writ_list_workflows or writ_browser_use because it is explicitly the connector they route through.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it: 'on my laptop', 'on my work computer', or when the user wants their own browser and logins. It also states the default action and the clear action, so when-not is covered by the list/use/clear triad.

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