bc_switch_company

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses critical side effects: open pages are invalidated and pageContextIds become unusable, requiring bc_open_page to re-open pages. It also explains the scope of the switch on future calls, which is essential behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, a warning about page invalidation, usage instructions, a caution against improper workflows, and an example. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, side effects, post-switch behavior, and exclusions, leaving little ambiguity for the agent.

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 schema already describes companyName as an exact name and suggests using bc_list_companies. The description reinforces this and adds a concrete example, increasing clarity. Given 100% schema coverage, this is a strong bonus beyond the baseline.

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 tool's function: switching to a different company within the current Business Central session. This distinguishes it from siblings like bc_list_companies (which lists companies) and bc_open_page/read/write/execute (which operate within a company context).

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 provides explicit guidance: use bc_list_companies first to verify the target company, avoid switching mid-workflow, and complete current operations first. It also clarifies that subsequent calls operate on the new company, effectively explaining when to invoke this tool relative to others.

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