env_switch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about what 'switching' changes, whether the selection persists across requests or sessions, what happens if the environment ID is invalid, or what the call returns. For a state-changing operation this is a significant disclosure gap.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the action appears first. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than a deliberate minimalism.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations, it leaves the behavioral consequences of the switch and error conditions entirely undocumented, which an agent needs in order to invoke it confidently.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Database ID of the environment to switch to'), so the schema already explains it fully. The description adds no further detail such as how to obtain the ID, which is acceptable at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 (switch) and resource (active environment) scoped to the project workspace, so the action is unambiguous. It does not name or distinguish itself from the closely related sibling project_switch, which also changes the 'active' context, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 by the purpose statement; there is no explicit guidance on when to switch environments, no prerequisites (e.g., must a project be active first), and no mention of alternatives such as project_switch or env_list for discovering environment IDs.

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