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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the reversal effect on subsequent tools and the no-op behavior when not impersonating. The annotations already include idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the no-op aspect is partially covered, but the description clarifies the operational impact and safety, which is valuable. No contradiction with annotations.

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: a clear opening statement, an explanatory sentence about reversal, and a final usage directive. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool with a clear purpose and usage, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to call it, and its behavior in edge cases (no-op). The presence of an output schema presumably handles return details. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter meaning because there are none. It correctly focuses on behavior and usage.

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 explicitly states the tool's action: switching back from a client account to the caller's own default Metadata account. It also references the inverse operation, `impersonate_account`, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool with the same prefix. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides direct usage guidance: call it when the user is done working in the other account or before switching to a different one. It also notes that it's safe to call when not impersonating (no-op), which prevents unnecessary hesitation. This is explicit and actionable.

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