opencode_switch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether switching destroys state, requires an existing session ID, affects ongoing work, or what happens to the previously active session. For an action that changes global state, this is a meaningful 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 description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple state-switching tool with one parameter.

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 single-parameter switch tool with a well-documented single param, the description is mostly adequate. However, without annotations and without output schema, the tool doesn't disclose error behaviors (e.g., what happens with a nonexistent session ID) or side effects of switching. Given the many related opencode_* siblings, a bit more context on effects would strengthen completeness.

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 100% and the single parameter 'session_id' is documented in the schema ('Session ID to make active'). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, but with only one well-described parameter, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb+resource construction ('Switches the active session to the specified session ID'). It identifies the tool as switching to a given session, which is distinct enough, though it doesn't elaborate on what switching means (context reload, workspace views, etc.). It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like opencode_active or opencode_context, though the intent is reasonably clear.

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 this is used to make a different session active, which provides some context. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like opencode_active (which likely queries the active session) or opencode_start. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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