Seleccionar tenant activo de la sesión

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses the key side effect—setting the active tenant for the MCP session—and the header mechanism. It also covers prerequisites (token access to the tenant) and the duplicate-name resolution behavior, which goes beyond a bare mutation description.

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 concise Spanish sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, how the effect is realized, and the constraint on the name/id pair. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 setter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation, its side effect, validation path, and an edge case (duplicate names). An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema: the name must be among tenants accessible to the token, and the id is the disambiguator for repeated names. This helps an agent decide when to supply the optional id.

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 specific verb ('Establece') and a precise resource ('tenant activo'), and it explains the session-scoped effect (sent as X-Tenant header in all requests). This clearly separates it from listing tools like list_available_tenants or get_active_tenant.

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 gives clear usage context and directs the agent to list_available_tenants to validate accessible names. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention get_active_tenant as the query counterpart, but the intent is unambiguous.

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