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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it discloses the session-scoped side effect, the exact x-custom-token header mechanism, the required JWT type, how to configure it, and the error case when it is missing. These are precisely the operational details an agent needs to invoke this tool safely.

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?

Three compact, front-loaded sentences cover purpose, auth requirements, errors, and related tools. Every sentence contributes operational value and nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 zero-parameter state-switching tool, the description thoroughly covers purpose, prerequisite, error behavior, and related tools. It omits an explicit comparison with app/user auth siblings and a success return value, but neither is essential given the provided context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics to clarify. Given the zero-parameter baseline, the description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 opens with the specific action—switching the session's active auth mode to B2B—and states the concrete consequence: subsequent calls authenticate as a tenant actor via the x-custom-token header. The B2B scope and tenant-actor wording distinguish it clearly from the sibling auth-use-app and auth-use-user tools.

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 makes the usage context clear: server-side automation, paired with specific B2B tools. It also states the prerequisite (b2bToken configured via ethora-configure or ETHORA_B2B_TOKEN env) and the failure mode if it is absent. It does not explicitly call out auth-use-app or auth-use-user as alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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