Change Version

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds an authorization requirement not present in the annotations ('requires enterprise write access'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context about prerequisites. It stops short of describing side effects on unsaved edits or lock behavior.

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 no filler; the scope ('uniquely matched layer or standalone table') and the prerequisite are both conveyed compactly. It is efficient, though very terse for an 8-parameter mutation tool.

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 described. However, for a mutation tool with 8 undocumented parameters at 0% coverage, the description omits key mechanics: how the layer/table is matched, the role of member_type, history_date, version_name, and include_participating. It is not complete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate but only partially does: it implies the values for version_type (traditional/historical/branch) but says nothing about aprx_path, map_name, member_name, member_type, history_date, version_name, or include_participating, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 (切换到/switch to) and resource ( uniquely matched layer or standalone table in the project), plus the version categories it targets (traditional, historical, branch). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_versions, create_version, reconcile_versions, and post_version, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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 a real precondition ('requires enterprise write access/gateway') and enumerates the version types, which helps the agent understand context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance nor any named alternative such as reconcile_versions or post_version.

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