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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the active context determines which prices, quotes, orders, and addresses apply, and unauthenticated calls trigger a sign-in prompt on printdash.io. It does not explain the destructiveHint specifically, but it does not contradict it.

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 front-loaded and appropriately sized for a one-parameter context-switching tool. The account-menu analogy is helpful, and the auth note is placed at the end without burying the main action.

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?

Given the annotations and output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the action, the affected domain data, the personal-vs-Team parameter meaning, and the authentication behavior. The main remaining gap is that it does not elaborate on the destructiveHint, but that is already flagged in annotations.

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 already has 100% parameter description coverage and explains that team_id comes from get_account's contexts or null for personal. The description repeats the null-for-personal semantics but adds no further format or selection guidance beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: switching the account's buying context between personal and a Team. It also ties that to concrete affected data (prices, quotes, orders, addresses), so an agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling tools such as get_account or update_address.

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 gives clear usage context: use it to switch the account's buying context, pass null for personal, and a team_id for a Team. It also states the signed-in prerequisite, though it does not explicitly name when not to use the tool or a direct alternative.

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