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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states that runtime credentials take highest priority and that clear=true reverts to env/file credentials. However, it does not mention error handling or side effects (e.g., whether credentials are persisted across sessions or if invalid AK/SK are rejected), leaving minor gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences front-load the primary action and usage scenario, with no redundant or extraneous information. It is immediately scannable and actionable.

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 tool with four parameters and two operational modes, the description covers the core purpose, usage, and behavioral scope. It does not mention output or error cases, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly in most scenarios.

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 descriptions already cover each parameter thoroughly (ak, sk, clear, region). The main description adds value by explaining the conditional relationship (ak/sk vs. clear) and the precedence rule, but does not introduce new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it is strong but not exceptional.

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 purpose: setting or clearing runtime Huawei Cloud credentials for the current MCP session. It explicitly distinguishes it from related auth tools (e.g., auth_switch, auth_status) by focusing on session-scoped credential management and precedence over environment variables.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use when switching accounts within the same Agent session.' It also clarifies the two modes of operation (AK/SK or clear=true) and the effect on subsequent calls, making the appropriate usage unambiguous.

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