switch_profile

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

With no annotations, the description takes full burden. It discloses atomic writes, cache invalidation, and cross-process sync. It does not mention potential failures or permissions, but the behavioral traits are well covered.

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 with three sentences, but includes setup instructions that are tangential to the tool's immediate action. The key point is front-loaded, making it mostly efficient.

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 simplicity and the lack of output schema, the description covers input semantics, behavioral details, and prerequisites. It does not specify return values or error states, but overall it is complete enough for a profile switch tool.

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 already describes the 'name' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that 'default' is for the primary profile and that other names come from credentials.json or LARK_PROFILES_JSON, enriching the meaning.

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 'Switch the active identity profile,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_profiles by detailing the atomic write and caching behavior.

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 explains when to use this tool, including the prerequisites ('To add a new profile, run...') and the context of auto-sync. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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