yaaif_set_tenant

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 only states that the tool 'activates on the server,' implying a state change, but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, idempotency, or impact on the current session. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the full consequences of calling the tool.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. It contains no fluff and is easy to parse, but the brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.

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 tool that changes state on the server, the description omits essential context such as which parameter to use for which identifier type, what happens if the tenant does not exist, and what the return value indicates. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, this description is insufficient for an agent to confidently call the 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?

The schema defines two parameters, tenant and tenant_id, both strings, with no descriptions and zero schema description coverage. The description mentions that the tenant can be specified by UUID, name, or slug, but does not map these identifier types to the parameters, leaving ambiguity about whether tenant accepts names/slugs and tenant_id accepts UUIDs, or if both can accept any. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 action (set active tenant) and the acceptable identifier types (UUID, name, slug), distinguishing it from listing tenants or other platform operations. It also clarifies the server-side activation, making the intent 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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. It does not reference sibling tools like list_tenants, leaving the agent to infer when switching the active tenant is needed.

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