set_active_vmrs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that setting a path overrides the default file location and that subsequent calls will use it. However, it does not mention potential side effects like invalidation of cached results or scope of the setting. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences long, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides concrete usage details. It is highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema shown (though context indicates output schema exists), the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. It explains the effect, the required input format, and the clearing mechanism. It could mention the return value, but it's a setter so likely not critical.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'path', with a description stating it should be an absolute path or empty string. The tool description adds value by explaining the purpose of the empty string and the requirement for an absolute path, going beyond the schema's basic description.

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 action: 'Pin a specific .vmrs file as the source of simulation results.' It uses a specific verb ('Pin') and resource ('.vmrs file'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_simulation_results by specifying that it sets the file that those tools will read from.

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 explicit guidance: 'Pass the absolute path of the file' and explains the effect on subsequent calls to related tools. It also specifies how to clear the override with an empty string. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an agent.

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