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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that tenant switches PERSIST in the user record in the database for SUPERADMIN users and that this tool reverses that persisted state, while OWNER/ADMIN/STAFF only reset to the session home tenant. That per-role distinction and the persistence side effect are exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey, and nothing contradicts destructiveHint=true.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the mandatory usage rule, then the role-specific mechanics. Every sentence adds information; nothing repeats the title or schema.

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?

Covers what the tool does, when it must be called, and how behavior differs by role — sufficient for a zero-parameter mutation tool with no output schema. Only gap is the absence of any note on what happens if no switch occurred (no-op vs error) or what the response reports.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline applies. The description still confirms 'No parameters needed', which reassures the agent that no tenant identifier must be supplied — a non-obvious point given the tool is about tenant identity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — restoring the original tenant context set at session start — and explicitly frames it as the inverse of nevent_switch_tenant, which is the only sibling that could be confused with it. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit directive with a trigger condition: 'ALWAYS call this after cross-tenant queries (nevent_switch_tenant)', plus the stated consequence of skipping it (leaving a SUPERADMIN account pointing at another tenant). The alternative tool is named directly, so there is no inference required.

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