pws_set_contract_persona

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: the global worker identity is never renamed, supplied fields override defaults, and exact restoration is possible via preview before-state. However, it doesn't explicitly warn that a confirmed switch permanently changes the contract presentation or describe any irreversible aspects, so it only partially enhances the annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'BETA' and the core action, with no wasted words. It packs relevant nuance about overrides, restoration, and the global identity into a compact structure.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, destructive effect, no output schema), the description covers purpose and key behaviors but misses the confirmation flow (how to actually commit the switch) and does not mention expected return values or prerequisites. It's adequate for a preview, but not fully complete for executing a destructive change.

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 only 33%, and the description partially compensates by explaining name ('custom ring name'), gimmick, picture, mask, and preview ('Defaults to preview'). However, it leaves 'confirmed' and 'personaId' semantics under-specified, and these are central to actually performing a switch versus a preview.

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 clearly states the action: 'PREVIEW OR SWITCH an active worker's contract identity to a native PWS alter ego.' It specifies the resource (active worker's contract identity), the operation, and the scope, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pws_set_contract_gimmick or pws_set_persona_availability.

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 usage through 'PREVIEW OR SWITCH' and 'Defaults to preview,' but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It also doesn't explain the relationship between 'preview' and 'confirmed' as a workflow, leaving the when-to-use guidance incomplete for a destructive action.

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