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

The annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and destructive, and the description usefully clarifies the real effect: the assistant is disconnected from the current account, no data in it changes, and the owner must sign in again. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss failure cases or reversibility in detail.

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 short, front-loaded with the only-use condition, and then gives the required steps and consequence in sequence. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 one-parameter, destructive account-switching tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key trigger, prerequisite confirmation, immediate effect, and next step. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, and the schema itself explains that ownerConfirmation contains the owner's own words. The description adds process meaning by requiring the assistant to confirm the current account and obtain the owner's yes before passing those words.

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 makes the account-switch purpose clear through the trigger condition and the described effect: disconnecting from the current JooVoice account and signing in again with a different one. It is specific but relies partly on the title rather than opening with a direct verb-and-resource statement.

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?

It states an explicit precondition ('Only when the owner wants you on a different JooVoice account') and adds a required confirmation workflow, including checking the current account with get_profile and obtaining the owner's yes. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the relevant sibling tool.

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