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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes beyond that by disclosing persistence across sessions and the membership requirement. That is meaningful behavioral context for a state-changing token operation.

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?

Two tightly written sentences convey operation, persistence, and a prerequisite with no filler. Key facts are front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter state-change tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that get_active_tenant reveals the current team, but that omission is minor.

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 already fully describes tenantId with 100% coverage and even points to list_my_tenants for discovery. The description adds no new parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 clearly states a specific action (switch) on a specific resource (active team/tenant) and explains the scope (for this token). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_active_tenant and list_my_tenants.

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 conveys when to use it (change active team) and includes the membership prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention siblings or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficiently clear among the listed tools.

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