switch_school_account

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the setting persists across restarts, which signals global state mutation, but says nothing about validation of the account name, what happens on an unknown account, or whether the switch affects the output of siblings like get_deadlines and list_courses.

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 short and front-loaded with the action and the persistence note, with no wasted prose. The docstring-style "Args:" block is slightly mechanical but earns its place by supplying the only parameter examples available.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a stateful switch affecting many sibling tools the description should say where valid account names come from and what an invalid name does. As written it is minimally sufficient but leaves the main failure mode undocumented.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must supply meaning, and it does add two concrete examples ("columbia", "mit") and a format hint (account name). However, it does not indicate whether these are the only valid values or that list_school_accounts enumerates them, leaving the parameter only partially specified.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ("Switch the active school account"), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling list_school_accounts. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling as the way to discover valid accounts, so it does not fully differentiate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_school_accounts, nor any prerequisite such as checking which accounts exist before switching. The only contextual hint is that the change persists, which is behavioral rather than usage guidance.

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