Select active client

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating a safe, side-effect-free operation. The description adds the behavioral trait that it affects 'future tool calls,' which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose error handling, return values, or behavior with invalid client IDs, leaving some gaps.

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 one concise sentence: 'Route future tool calls to a specific connected Roblox client.' It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every word adds value. No unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior of selecting a client for future calls. However, it omits practical prerequisites such as calling list_clients to discover client IDs, and does not mention potential errors or side effects on subsequent tool calls. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 only the parameter name 'clientId' with minLength 1 and no description. The description adds minimal context by mentioning 'specific connected Roblox client,' but does not explain how to obtain valid IDs, the expected format, or any relationship to list_clients. With 0% schema description coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Route future tool calls to a specific connected Roblox client.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_clients, which simply lists clients, and other interaction tools. The tool's core function is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you want future tool calls to target a specific connected Roblox client. It implies a prerequisite of knowing which client, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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