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

Annotations already disclose that this is not read-only, is idempotent, is non-destructive, and is not open-world. The description adds useful context about the ID source (list_branches), but does not explain what state is switched, whether the open project changes, or what permissions are required. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the ID source immediately, so every word earns its place.

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 two-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and partial schema coverage, the description supplies the key operational fact that branchId comes from list_branches. It still leaves the behavioral effect of switching versions underspecified, but annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers projectId, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 50%: projectId has a schema description, while branchId has none. The description partially compensates by saying the version ID comes from list_branches, which helps identify branchId's source. It does not add format or validation details, and it says nothing about projectId beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Switch to an existing project version id from list_branches." It distinguishes the operation from creating or listing branches by specifying that the version must already exist and come from list_branches. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation for merge_branch or diff_branches, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 phrase "from list_branches" implies that the caller should first obtain a branch/version ID via list_branches before invoking this tool. However, it does not state when not to use this tool, nor does it name alternatives like create_branch or open_project. Usage is therefore only implied, not fully specified.

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