switch_default_account

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the switch affects all subsequent tool calls, which is not immediately obvious from the tool name. It also clarifies the accepted account format (slug or UUID). However, it does not mention error handling, persistence, or authentication requirements.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It captures the essential behavior and side effect. It could hint at using list_accounts to obtain valid slugs, but this is inferable from sibling context.

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 input schema provides only the parameter name and type (string), with zero schema-level description. The description compensates by specifying the expected format ('slug or UUID') and giving an example, which is critical for correct usage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Switch') and clearly identifies the resource ('active account') and scope ('for all subsequent tool calls'). This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like whoami and list_accounts, which serve different purposes.

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?

The description implies the usage context by stating that the switch affects all subsequent tool calls, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as first listing accounts with list_accounts. The guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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