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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool mutates the session's active auth mode, requires a pre-configured appToken, and errors if one is missing. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description appropriately supplements them rather than repeating them.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action, then uses labeled 'Auth', 'Errors', and 'Related' sections to convey prerequisites, failure modes, and sequencing. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 parameterless session-state switch with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the effect, prerequisites, error condition, and recommended usage order. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and to understand the consequences.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details to clarify. The description still adds useful context about the configured appToken that indirectly affects behavior, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 the tool's verb and resource: it switches the session's active auth mode to app-token, which is specific and actionable. It does not explicitly name sibling auth tools like ethora-auth-use-b2b or ethora-auth-use-user, but the app-token scope makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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 concrete prerequisites and sequencing: appToken must already be configured via ethora-configure, ETHORA_APP_TOKEN, or ethora-app-select, and it recommends using this tool after ethora-app-select. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternative auth-mode tools, but the usage context is clear.

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