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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral fact — that the explicit personal setup is retained across the switch — which is genuinely useful. It does not, however, resolve the tension between a name that implies a state change ('switch/enter') and a readOnly annotation, nor does it mention side effects or what happens to the prior environment.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the core action is stated first. The trailing clause 'while retaining the explicit personal setup' is slightly vague but earns its place as the only behavioral detail provided.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the structured fields carry most of the load. Still, for a tool with a conditional required parameter and a 'contract' help-mode flag, the description is thin — it never mentions the help mode or the team_container_id requirement, and gives no guidance on return behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (contract, destination, team_container_id, personal_container_id) are already documented in the schema, including the conditional requirement on team_container_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a recognizable verb and resource: entering a team environment or returning to personal work. An agent can infer this is a context/environment switch. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like switch_deck or team_work, which also deal with context transitions.

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?

Usage is implied by 'enter a specific team environment or return to personal work' — the agent can guess this is for moving between team and personal contexts. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. team_container_id required for team), and no named alternatives such as switch_deck or team_work.

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