switch_keyboard_layout

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-destructive, non-open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the name: it doesn't say whether the change affects only the focused window or the whole session, whether it wraps around at the end of the list, or that the effect is immediately visible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and target are stated immediately.

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-param, non-destructive action with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete. The only meaningful gap is the absence of a pointer to get_keyboard_layout for checking the resulting state.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The input schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate.

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?

Specific verb ('cycle to the next') paired with a concrete resource ('keyboard layout'), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_keyboard_layout, but never names it, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'next' suggests cycling through layouts when the current one is wrong. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to get_keyboard_layout for reading the current layout.

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