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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the switch is persistent across sessions and requires team membership. This communicates the side-effect nature of the tool beyond the annotations.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The most important behavioral facts—what it does, persistence, and membership requirement—are front-loaded efficiently.

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 single-parameter switching tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: target tenant, persistence, and membership requirement. It could mention what happens when the caller is not a member, but the core guidance for a successful call is present.

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 parameter schema fully describes tenantId and even suggests list_my_tenants for discovery, so the tool description itself does not add additional parameter-level semantics. This matches the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Switch') and clear resource ('active team/tenant') with the exact effect: changing the tenant for the token. It distinguishes itself from related read/list tools by focusing on switching rather than querying.

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 provides useful context: the change persists across sessions and the caller must be a member of the target team. It also includes a prerequisite via the parameter description referencing list_my_tenants, though it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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